why we need wcf services?

Question

1.10/5 (3 votes)

See more:

WCF

Hi,

Kindly Request you to please provide the Answer to the Below Question

why we need wcf services?

Posted 20-Jun-12 7:22am

mastanp

Add a Solution

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 20-Jun-12 13:34pm

This is not quite correct answer. It could only be explained properly if you have some concerns about it. Do you?
--SA

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Accepted Answer · 2012-06-20T07:42:00

Solution 1

This is always awkward to answer questions like that. What would you mean by "we need"? Who are "we"? I always feel that if you are asking, you might not be the one who needs them… :-) See also my comment to the question.

You should be able to get an idea from these articles:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082.aspx[^],
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa738737.aspx[^].

In brief, .NET introduces new, fully object-oriented platform; and in view of strictness and clarity of this platform, previously existing RPC, SOA or REST models with previously existing Web service standards look ugly, overwhelmed by system compatibility, legacy and old standard support issues, suffering from the lack of flexibility, clarity, from too much of "accidental complexity".

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service#Criticisms[^].

—SA

Posted 20-Jun-12 7:42am

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov

v2

Comments

Maciej Los 20-Jun-12 15:34pm

Another one good answer, 5!

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 20-Jun-12 15:41pm

Thank you, Maciej.
--SA

[no name] 20-Jun-12 19:02pm

Ever heard of the Pluralis Majestatis?

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 21-Jun-12 11:20am

Do you mean "we"? :-)
You think this is royal "we", not the author's "we"? :-)

Thank you very much for pointing out the term which I did not know before, but I knew the usage of it from my early ears: my grandmother remembered the times of that monarch (can anyone believe that?) when she was a little girl; and she though he was talking like that all the time (which was not true in fact); and this is what she though was the most funny :-) (Unlike English, in Russian not only nouns and pronounce, but every verbs in all form is also gender- and plurality-modified, and royal "we" would sound really funny; as to the plural "you", it is used everywhere, just a polite form.)

--SA

[no name] 21-Jun-12 11:33am

I was actually joking. Nowadays there are not many people around who speak that way, and then only at certain formal occasions. Usually people like to hide behind 'we'. They don't say 'I want you to ...', they always say 'we want you to...' or 'we think...'. Probably this is to imply that you are standing alone against many. Such cheap rhethorics don't work well on me. I usually ruin the entire effect by sarcastically adding 'your Majesty' or 'Highness' to every sentence and pretend to naively have assumed them to be some kind of royals. Works every time :-)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 29-Jun-12 21:20pm

Of course I got it was a joke. I just was unaware of this Latin term, so thank you. By "hide behind we" you probably mean patronizing "we". Or author's "we"? I actually often face with the two; and I accept author's but don't like patronizing. Actually, I don't see how "we" feels like "standing along". I think it's more typically looks like going away from direct responsibility.

Somehow, often saying "I" is viewed as not modest, but I kinda always respected this way, as the person implies: "this is what I do (or think, decided) and I'm ready to take personal responsibility for that, not hiding behind others". Of course I don't mean attributing some success made by others to one person from 1st face -- this is just cheating. But even here I also don't like saying "we" too much; it's often better to mention people personally. You know what's really very repelling to me? "We women usually blah-blah, and you men...", "we musicians, you technicians". Sexism and other ...isms. Of course I often use "we" myself, but in "normal" cases.

By the way, is German you native? When you describe this usage, do you mean how you speak in English, or perhaps analogous usage in German?

I really like your trick with "Your Majesty"!
--SA