I have no problem praticing that ones. All my collague do the same thing. Dont worry about overhead...because you always can put your WCF on other machines. The main purpose of WCF is to distribute the process into many machines. Processing power getting cheaper though. If you put everything in one machine, better do inprocess instead of WCF.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote: > I have seen that done, but if you have 20 some properties on an object > - that would lead to 60 properties (isDeleted and isChanged for each > original property). That seems like a lot of overhead. Maybe that's > the only clean way to implement it though? > > Thanks > > > On Jan 14, 12:50 am, Gunawan Hadikusumo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > WCF is simple based on CRUD = CREATE READ UPDATE AND DELETE. > > > > so, you need to modify your class into this kind of structure : > > > > id.....->primari key auto incremented > > ...any > > ..any. > > ...isdeleted -> boolean > > ...ischanged --> boolean > > > > So, i when you modify certain object taken from database, just sign > > ischanged to true...then > > on your WCF.....through all loops of the object array just find the > object > > with ischanged = true then > > just update that object on database. > > > > simple > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What is the best practice for developing an "update" method in a WCF > > > service? Imagine a scenario where you have an Organization object that > > > has an OrganizationName and OrganizationAddress as two properties. The > > > client wants to update just the OrganizationName and send a null back > > > as the OrganizationAddress. At this point, in the WCF service, I don't > > > know if they meant to send a null to *remove* the address or if they > > > wanted me to ignore that field as part of the update. Obviously this > > > only comes into play with objects with many properties. > > > > > Thanks in advance for any help. >
