The Efficient Coder http://www.efficientcoder.net/ There has got to be a better way of communicating with our computers! en-us Kevin D. Wolf Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:07:58 GMT newtelligence dasBlog 1.8.5223.2 kevinw@software-logistics.com kevinw@software-logistics.com http://www.efficientcoder.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce http://www.efficientcoder.net/pingback.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce.aspx kevinw@software-logistics.com (Kevin D. Wolf) http://www.efficientcoder.net/CommentView,guid,abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce 1 JSON Script Ignore Tags http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce.aspx Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:07:58 GMT <p> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">I've built some ASMX web services (yes these should be converted to WCF, but they work for now).&nbsp; I'm starting to use these as Script Services for some ASP.NET Ajax Enabled pages.&nbsp; I ran into a problem where some of the "stuff" I didn't want to have happen in some properties on the objects returned by the server were getting executed even though they were marked as </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-no-proof: yes"><font size=4><font color=#000000>[</font><span style="COLOR: #2b91af">XmlIgnore</span></font><font color=#000000><font size=4>()]</font> </font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">which disables them for SOAP tASMX type web calls.&nbsp; Apparently when the returned objects get serialized as JSON for a script service, they ignore the <span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-no-proof: yes"><font size=4><font color=#000000>[</font><span style="COLOR: #2b91af">XmlIgnore</span></font><font color=#000000><font size=4>()]</font></font></span> tag, which I guess makes sense but is rather&nbsp;<span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">inconvenient, in that I need to go back and do a manual search &amp; change</span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Within the </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-no-proof: yes"><font size=4>using</font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-no-proof: yes"><font color=#000000><font size=4> System.Web.Script.Serialization</font> </font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">namespace there is another attribute you can decorate your properties with called </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-no-proof: yes"><font size=4><font color=#000000>[</font><span style="COLOR: #2b91af">ScriptIgnore</span><font color=#000000>()]</font></font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'"> that seems to do the trick.</span> </p> <p> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #003300; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />-ec<o:p></o:p> </span> </p> <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.efficientcoder.net/aggbug.ashx?id=abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce" /> http://www.efficientcoder.net/CommentView,guid,abf57d34-998b-41e1-b085-9688c909dbce.aspx ASP.NET;WCF;AJAX http://www.efficientcoder.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3 http://www.efficientcoder.net/pingback.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3.aspx kevinw@software-logistics.com (Kevin D. Wolf) http://www.efficientcoder.net/CommentView,guid,4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3 2

I've got a couple mobile projects that need to provide communications services to a centralized server.  Over the past year or so, I've been getting to know WCF a little better and the more I learn, the more I think this is the one by far that in all the latest Microsoft technologies, that you should invest your time in learning.  Saying that, it would seem logical to think about using WCF as the technology to communicate on our mobile devices.  I'm not sure the answer is clear to me yet on this one.

First, what do I LOVE about WCF, if I had to sum it up, I would say three things,

  1. The formality of defining and implementing contacts for our communications
  2. The ability to configure and for the most part not worry about the transport details when coding your service
  3. The ability to do duplex messaging, I still need to spend some time to see how this works under the hood from a scalability implication, but the concept in general seems powerful.

Saying that, we can make the following assumptions about the current state of mobile devices and applications:

  1. In most cases the device is going to be a client on the client/server side of the equation
  2. Our computing horsepower just isn't the same
  3. Based upon my experience in both worlds (desktop/web AND mobile devices) I would say you can crank out 3-5 lines of desktop/web code in the same time it takes to get one line of mobile code into production
  4. Code on mobile devices can't easily be updated so it really has to be right the first time
  5. As good as our mobile platforms are these days, there are still a few quirks that are beyond our control and device specific

Therefore, most of the benefits of going with WCF really aren't that great in a mobile device.  And if a technology really doesn't provide much value, it may make more sense to keep it simplest technology with the fewest moving parts.  I think as with anything new, one needs to implement and analyze the results.  As I mentioned earlier, I don't have answers here yet, but wanted to start capturing thoughts.

-ec

 

WCF on a Windows Mobile Device http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3.aspx http://www.efficientcoder.net/PermaLink,guid,4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3.aspx Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:08:05 GMT <img style="FLOAT: right" src="http://www.efficientcoder.com/content/binary/WCF_Mobile.gif" border=0> <p> I've got a couple mobile projects that need to provide communications services to a centralized server.&nbsp; Over the past year or so, I've been getting to know WCF a little better and the more I learn, the more I think this is the one by far that in all the&nbsp;latest Microsoft technologies,&nbsp;that you should invest your&nbsp;time in learning.&nbsp; Saying that, it would seem logical to think about using WCF as the technology to communicate on our mobile devices.&nbsp; I'm not sure the answer is clear to me yet on this one. </p> <p> First, what do I LOVE about WCF, if I had to sum it up, I would say three things, </p> <ol> <li> The formality of defining and implementing contacts for our communications <li> The ability to configure and for the most part not worry about the transport details when coding your service <li> The ability to do duplex messaging, I still need to spend some time to see how this works under the hood from a scalability implication, but the concept in general seems powerful.</li> </ol> <p> Saying that, we can make the following assumptions about the current state of mobile devices and applications: </p> <ol> <li> In&nbsp;most cases the device is going to be a client on the client/server side of the equation <li> Our computing horsepower just isn't the same <li> Based upon my experience in both worlds (desktop/web AND mobile devices) I would say you can crank out 3-5 lines of desktop/web code in the same time it takes to get one line of mobile code into production <li> Code on mobile devices can't easily be updated so it really has to be right the first time <li> As good as our mobile platforms are these days, there are still a few quirks that are beyond our control and device specific</li> </ol> <p> Therefore, most of the benefits of going with WCF really aren't that great in a mobile device.&nbsp; And if a technology really doesn't provide much value, it may make more sense to keep it simplest technology with the fewest moving parts.&nbsp; I think as with anything new, one needs to implement and analyze the results.&nbsp; As I mentioned earlier, I don't have answers here yet, but wanted to start capturing thoughts. </p> <p> -ec </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <img width="0" height="0" src="http://www.efficientcoder.net/aggbug.ashx?id=4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3" /> http://www.efficientcoder.net/CommentView,guid,4602239c-ce7d-4a2f-8426-c52e54b16dd3.aspx .NET 3.5;Mobile;WCF