问题描述
不像ASMX实施WCF需要为你实现它的界面。我不太明白，设计背后的原因。接口为2类之间的合同......有了这样说，你经常有satisfry到相同的接口，但正在实施不同的2 WCF服务？
Unlike the asmx implementation the wcf requires for you to implement it's interface. I do not quite understand the reason behind that design. Interface is a contract between 2 classes...With that being said, how often do you have 2 wcf services that satisfry to the same interface but being implemented differently?
另一个意见，在MSDN强烈建议要做到这一点：
Another comment, the msdn strongly recommends to do this:
MyService service = new MyService();
try {
service.DoWork();
}
catch(Exception) {}
finally {
service.Close();
}
所以我们可以说，如果我到我的服务使用是这样的接口注：
So let's say if I am to inject my service with using it's interface like this:
public MyComponent : IDisposable
{
readonly IMyService service = null;
public MyComponent(IMyService service) {
this.service = service;
}
public DoWork()
{
//some additional code.
this.service.DoWork();
}
public void Dispose()
{
//The Interface does not have the Close method,
//So doing this defeats the whole purpose of polymorphysm
(this.service as MyService).Close(); //Silly.
}
}
你怎么把接口的优势与WCF？
How do you take the advantage of the interface with WCF?
推荐答案
没有，WCF的不要求你有一个接口，并实现它。
No, WCF does NOT require you to have an interface and implement it.
这只是普遍的最佳实践这样做 - 但你不知道的必须后，如果您不希望
It's just generally accepted best practice to do so - but you don't have to, if you don't want to.
如果你愿意，你可以把你的 [的ServiceContract] 上有许多 [OperationContract的] 服务方法 - 没有什么这样做阻止你。
If you want to, you can put your [ServiceContract] on a concrete class that has a number of [OperationContract] service methods - there's nothing stopping you from doing so.
但同样：它的普遍接受和preached使用一个接口来分离出实际的合同作为一个接口（这样你就可以如嘲笑它测试等）的最佳实践
But again: it's generally accepted and preached best practice to use an interface to separate out the actual contract as an interface (so you can e.g. mock it for testing etc.).
这篇关于为什么.NET WCF服务所需要的接口的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！