Annoyances

Mar 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I'm totally sold on contract first, hook line and sinker.  No more willy nilly design by coding idiots.  I've used WSCF.classic for about a year now for various work and personal projects.  A couple days back I downloaded blue.  First and foremost... awesome product, love it.  But! I found a number of very annoying things:

- The generated interface's [ServiceContract(..)] does not specify the required full namespace for the ConfigurationName, so WCF can't find the interface
- One of my properties generated an erronious XmlSerializerableAttribute that it shouldn't have.  I can provide details if you like.
- You must register the metadata extention class library in the GAC...

cd <wscf.blue root>\bin
gacutil -i Thinktecture.ServiceModel.Extensions.Metadata.dll

- You mentioned this on the home page, but I wanted to get it more explicit.  When "generate endpoints" is checked, the generated metadataService tag has a metadataUrl="wsdl"...  for refernce... all you developers out there, use something like "http://localhost:port/wsdl"
- Wizards "Save Settings" doesn't save namespace or the "endpoints" checkbox
- The generated config really should also generate a dummy endpoint, so you can set the bindingConfiguration to your custom binding that you generated nicely.


WCF won't find it if you don't, that one wasted me like 4 hours. but I'm not bitter.  I'm going to fix all this.  If you want my updatse, I can post them.

-Bruce
Coordinator
Mar 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Bruce,

Thanks for taking the time to provide us with this feedback. We will look into your issues and please contact me at ef_bakker.msn.com if you are interested in joining our project to further improve this product!

Cheers,

Edward
Mar 12, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Edward et al,

I was excited to see the timely response.  Thanks.  I made the fixes above and submitted the changes to Edward.  Saving preferences was a very simple fix, but the namespace issue ServiceContracts ConfigurationName is an ugly fix. We'll see what Edward does with that.

While debugging the plug-in it occurred to me that I'd really love to see the ContractFirst CodeGen turned into a build tool.  So it runs every build.  The obvious point to build tihs is off ProcessCodeGenerationRequest(), but it has a number of UI hooks.  So I was thinking one could build a config file or bake the options into a custon WSDL document  attribute.  Just thoughts, has there been any group think on this?
May 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Hi Bruce,

Yes, we have discussed sometime ago that it would be good to have a more complete API totally divorced from the UI which could then be called from other tools as well as the command line. We havent got past the discussion stage though :-) . However, I will be taking a closer look through the code in the next couple of weeks or so to see if we can make some progress in that area as I am quite keen to explore linking WSCF with another tool I have written.

Cheers,

benjy

May 27, 2009 at 5:23 AM
I've already done it. It's pretty easy. You just have to remove the hooks from the dialog and give them a proper interface... imagine that, using our own dogfood :)

This is how I use it on VS Express where you MS doesn't allow plug-ins.

Bruce Meacham
C: (816)588-8702 H: (913)439-1990
C2: (913)515-1284 W: (816)854-6453







From: [email removed]
To: [email removed]
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:38:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Annoyances [WSCFblue:49762]

From: santoshbenjamin
Hi Bruce,
Yes, we have discussed sometime ago that it would be good to have a more complete API totally divorced from the UI which could then be called from other tools as well as the command line. We havent got past the discussion stage though :-) . However, I will be taking a closer look through the code in the next couple of weeks or so to see if we can make some progress in that area as I am quite keen to explore linking WSCF with another tool I have written.
Cheers,
benjy


Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.
May 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

That's excellent news. I'll check with Edward and take a look at the code. Guess we should try and make a full fledged MSI with all these changes.

Cheers,

Benjy

May 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Bruce,

Regarding your post above about splitting up the UI from the core, Would you mind sending me the code you used  for that? I'd like to take a look and see if we can incorporate into a full release.

I have sent you a separate notification with my email address.

Thanks

benjy