Talk:Windows Communication Foundation
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Non-copyvio article started
- 2 Links
- 3 .NET 3.0 Stack
- 4 "binding"
- 5 WS-I
- 6 Code samples
- 7 The first sentence is somewhat weird.
- 8 Serialization?
- 9 This article completely misses the point
- 10 Need to put more detail
- 11 Formatting
- 12 Interoperability with other XML technologies
- 13 WS != SOA
- 14 History / chronology
Non-copyvio article started
The Windows Communication Foundation page could use more links. There are numerous related Wikipedia topics as well as a growing number of Web pages with information about WCF organization, deployment, use and performance.
Craig Bolon 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
.NET 3.0 Stack
IMO this image of the Vista 3.0 Stack is very nice. I don't know how but I'd like to contact the author and ask for an SVG Version. Then I would put INSIDE the SVG Image The links to wards the concerning Topics like: Windows XP , .NET 2.0 Don't you think too that would be nice? The Image Linking seems much more reasonable and accessible than text Linking.
--Jerome Potts 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The term "binding" in this case refers to the second option, which is "Binding (or connecting) to a server in client–server computing," which has no article. The only options in this case are a) linking to the Client-server model page (could be very confusing for the user), b) Creating a page solely on "binding to a server" (not going to happen--concept is way to narrow), or c) leaving it up to the user to be smart enough to realize that the next sentence in the article clarifies what form of "binding" this is talking about. I vote for option C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
"While Microsoft is a board member of WS-I it is not clear how many WS-I profiles they are committing to support fully." My take on WS-I is that it was created by the IBM-Microsoft alliance to promote their preferred standards for web services. Other standards bodies like W3C and OASIS have worked on proposed standards, not all of which suited IBM and Microsoft. If I'm right, the sentence from the article is somewhat misleading. There is every chance that any WS-I profile will be supported by Microsoft because they would have had considerable influence on its creation. Anyone know of a good source to cite on this? Paul Foxworthy (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is somewhat weird.
Wouldn't it be better instead of- "used to build applications that inter-communicate", "used for building communication points between applications"? test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Serialization is the process by which an object is converted to a sequence of bytes so the object can be stored or transferred. Deserialization is the process by which these bytes are resequenced back into an object. To provide an analogy, serialization is to objects what the transporters are to people in Star Trek. When Scotty 'beams' Kirk from the Enterprise to a planet's surface, Kirk is 'serialized' into a sequence of data which is then sent to the planet where this sequence of data is 'deserialized' back into a person. Anyway, I'll add a link to our serialization article to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This article completely misses the point
Need to put more detail
Hi I am Mohsin. I am working as software professional in Noida. I think we need to elobrate more on WCF. Sections including WCF contracts, Hosting, bindings along with code samples can be added in this page. This will make Windows Communication Foundation more elobrative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin Wiki 09 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In the current state there are many formatting problems with the article: numbering af sections and formatting of the sample source code. For example, near:
22.214.171.124. Advanced hosting features The ICommunicationObject interface supported
I wouldn't mind doing the required changes, but I am not sure exactly how.
For example, should there be the following 4 level deep structure in the article?
1.5. 1.5.1. 126.96.36.199. 188.8.131.52. 1.5.2. 184.108.40.206. 220.127.116.11. 18.104.22.168. 22.214.171.124. 1.5.3.
I think those sections need to be rewritten. They are more appropriate in a technical manual than in an encyclopedia. I prefer the previous version of the article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is a formatting issues with this article. I think we can add an introduction section and provide a description from the average user perspective. I beieve that would be a good starting point cleaning up the article. We can try to write this from a more business user's view point. For an example we could say (in a more academic way) that WCF is a Framework that is associated with .net and would be ideal for enterprises which have already invested in MS technologies to create service oriented applications. What is your take on that (Ramya20 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC))
Interoperability with other XML technologies
WS != SOA
Article begins by saying that WCF is a framework "for building connected, service-oriented applications." This seems to confuse "web services" with "service-oriented applications". I would describe WCF as doing the former. The two sources given don't mention SOA or Service-Oriented Architecture at all. Irrbloss (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)