We use WCF serialization against our domain entities. We ensure valid state by only using full serialization on objects being retrieved from the service. Update / Delete operations are handled by the WCF client passing our service a Command object. The service then loads the domain entity and applies the relevant update / delete action.
Cheers, John On Oct 30, 10:38 am, Sebastian Jancke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sidar, > > as you said, it may make sense, when in a small environment. However for > historic reasons - plus always having domain objects in valid state - > there is no way around for me to bind domain objects to the ui or > services. In your described UI-szenario, there seem to be no wcf > services aground. So coming back to the initial question, going > distributed with e.g. wcf seems not simple/trivial/small to me. > > -Sebastian > > Sidar Ok schrieb: > > > > > Windows forms client apps is multiple clients. It is not the count of > > the type, it is the number of consumers of your services. > > > An example to what I said is a multi tier web application, where you > > develop both UI and services. So that when an entity is changed, yo > > don't need to change your mappings because simply the same thing is used > > everywhere, even while binding to UI. There are lots of projects out > > there that this quick and dirty model is enough. > > > Hope it all makes sense. > > > Sidar > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Luis Abreu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > Hello guys. > > > Sidar, even in simple projects where you only have a client you'll > > have some gains if you don't distribute your domain objects. I was > > distributing domain objects happilly until one day I've noticed that a > > really small bug correction meant having to redistribute everything, > > ie, besides updating my service layer, I had also to update the > > windows forms client apps. This can be a pain in the ass if youi don't > > have high width badwith (l have several clients which use our app and > > don't have high width bandwidth)... > > > So, that's why now we will always use DTOs for sending info back to > > the client. Generally, they're more stable than our domain objects and > > this means less coupling and less worries with clients updates... > > > -- > > Regards, > > Luis Abreu > > > -- > > Sidar Ok > >http://www.sidarok.com > > > > sebastian_jancke.vcf > < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
