Comments on: Message: The Most Important WCF Class http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/ Become a WCF Ninja - WCF Tips and Tricks Thu, 13 May 2010 08:37:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: jezell http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-14 jezell Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:16:38 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-14 WCF certainly doesn't go out of it's way to make messaging with anything other than interfaces and objects marked up with attributes easy, but it is possible. This topic is probably worth an entire blog post, so I'll write something up when a get a chance. WCF certainly doesn't go out of it's way to make messaging with anything other than interfaces and objects marked up with attributes easy, but it is possible. This topic is probably worth an entire blog post, so I'll write something up when a get a chance.

]]> By: Confused by debugger http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Confused by debugger Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:56:40 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-10 Thank you for responding so quickly! If I was using a socket I could just write bytes. Why do I have to use the none argument, the action argument and the byte[] argument? Is there a method that just takes a byte array? If I have to write a MessageEncoder why do you say WCF supports arbitrary bytes? Isn't that like saying sockets support WCF? Are you saying in 4.0 I do not have to write a MessageEncoder? Thank you for responding so quickly!

If I was using a socket I could just write bytes. Why do I have to use the none argument, the action argument and the byte[] argument? Is there a method that just takes a byte array?

If I have to write a MessageEncoder why do you say WCF supports arbitrary bytes? Isn't that like saying sockets support WCF?

Are you saying in 4.0 I do not have to write a MessageEncoder?

]]> By: jezell http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-9 jezell Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:28:47 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-9 The component responsible for turning the representation of the message into data is the MessageEncoder. You see the base 64 tag because you are using the text message encoder. If you want to send raw binary data, you can implement a custom message encoder class with a custom xml dictionary writer that only writes out the raw byte array and writes it out directly as bytes. This is how the byte stream message encoding in 4.0 works. Message encoders are a pretty easy thing to implement compared to something like channels. The component responsible for turning the representation of the message into data is the MessageEncoder. You see the base 64 tag because you are using the text message encoder. If you want to send raw binary data, you can implement a custom message encoder class with a custom xml dictionary writer that only writes out the raw byte array and writes it out directly as bytes. This is how the byte stream message encoding in 4.0 works. Message encoders are a pretty easy thing to implement compared to something like channels.

]]> By: Confused by debugger http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Confused by debugger Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:22:08 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-8 So if I create a message with a byte array as an argument with a version of none and I look in the debugger it looks like this <base64Binary xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/">BwAAAAAAAA==</base64Binary> Is that XML? How do I get rid of those tags that are messing up my nice compact byte array? Is this just a visual trick of the debugger? So if I create a message with a byte array as an argument with a version of none and I look in the debugger it looks like this <base64Binary xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/">BwAAAAAAAA==</base64Binary>

Is that XML? How do I get rid of those tags that are messing up my nice compact byte array? Is this just a visual trick of the debugger?

]]> By: jezell http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-6 jezell Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:36:09 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-6 No, there are no special pitfalls when dealing with non-SOAP messages. As long as you set the message version to none, you will be fine. If doing REST work, you can use the WebMessageEncoder. Additionally, .NET 4.0 adds ByteStreamMessageEncodingBindingElement. <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.channels.bytestreammessageencodingbindingelement(VS.100).aspx" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.se...</a> No, there are no special pitfalls when dealing with non-SOAP messages. As long as you set the message version to none, you will be fine. If doing REST work, you can use the WebMessageEncoder. Additionally, .NET 4.0 adds ByteStreamMessageEncodingBindingElement.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.se...

]]> By: Yaron Naveh http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/index.php/2010/01/22/message-the-most-important-class-in-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Yaron Naveh Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:51:38 +0000 http://blog.iserviceoriented.com/?p=8#comment-5 I was actually doing a similar investigation some time ago to check how much abstract is it really. I was in a need to move totally binary messages in the channel stack. I didn't find any flaws then, but was a little afraid that the Message class is "biased" towards Soap. For example the division to "headers" and "body", the addressing headers that magically fit the WS-Addressing standard etc. Based on your experience, if I want to take the Wcf channel stack framework, and use it with my own channels passing my own non-xml messages - am I expected to any specific pitfalls? I was actually doing a similar investigation some time ago to check how much abstract is it really. I was in a need to move totally binary messages in the channel stack. I didn't find any flaws then, but was a little afraid that the Message class is "biased" towards Soap. For example the division to "headers" and "body", the addressing headers that magically fit the WS-Addressing standard etc.

Based on your experience, if I want to take the Wcf channel stack framework, and use it with my own channels passing my own non-xml messages – am I expected to any specific pitfalls?

]]>