WCF:App.config中的配置是否比自定义Proxy类中的硬编码更好? [英] WCF: Is configuration in App.config better than in hard-coded in custom Proxy class?

问题描述

首先此不是重复的.我有一个不同的问题.

first of all this is not duplicate. I have a little bit different question.

在客户端(或在跨平台项目的情况下为客户端)的App.config文件中摆脱WCF的配置是一种好习惯，并用注入的 Proxy 类(来自不同的dll)替换它，为所有客户共享)?

Is it good practice to get rid of WCF's config in App.config file in the client (or clients in case of cross-platform project) and replace it with injected Proxy class (from different dll, shared for all clients)?

我才刚开始，所以我的配置文件并不大，但这是一个示例:

I'm just starting so my config file is not big, but here is an example:

App.config(WCF部分):

<system.serviceModel>
  <client>
    <endpoint address="net.tcp://localhost:8002/MyService"
              binding="netTcpBinding"
              contract="CallbackExample.Client.IMyService" />
  </client>
</system.serviceModel>

我必须将此代码复制并粘贴到我创建的每个客户端中.使用Xamarin，我可以在单个VS解决方案中有许多用C#编写的客户端.因此，尽管如此，为什么不删除 system.serviceModel 部分并做到这一点呢?

I must have this code copy and pasted into every client I made. Working with Xamarin I can have many clients written in C# in single VS solution. So I though, why not just get rid of system.serviceModel section and do that:

MyServiceProxy.cs:

public class MyServiceProxy : ClientBase<IMyService>, IMyService
{
    public MyServiceProxy()
        : base(new NetTcpBinding(), new EndpointAddress("net.tcp://localhost:8002/MyService"))
    {
    }

    public int JustAMethod()
    {
        return Channel.JustAMethod();
    }
}

这样，我将把配置放在一个地方.

This way, I will have my configuration in single place.

因此，我的问题是:是否认为这是一种好习惯?有没有更好的方法?我不确定，因为WCF的全部目的在于通过App.config flie实现灵活性和易于配置.

So, my question is: Is it considered as a good practice? Is there a better way? I'm not sure, cause WCF is all about flexibility and easy config through App.config flie.

推荐答案

如果不需要其他配置，我总是选择纯代码解决方案.

If there is no need for additional configuration, I always go for pure code solutions.

过去，通过app.conf，WCF的配置稍微复杂一些.使用 ServiceHost ，您甚至可以用纯代码配置WCF服务.

Back in the day WCF was slightly more complex to configure, via app.conf. With the ServiceHost you can even configure a WCF service in pure code.

这同样适用于WCF客户端imo；如果您不需要通过配置文件为用户配置它:我想说说纯代码解决方案.

The same applies to a WCF client imo; if you don't have the need to configure it via a config file for your users: I'd say go for the pure code solution.

此处另一个讨论同一主题的.(类似的推理，问题仍然存在；您是否需要配置灵活性).

Here another discussion of the same topic. (kind of the same reasoning, the question remains; do you need the configuration flexibility).

这篇关于WCF:App.config中的配置是否比自定义Proxy类中的硬编码更好?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IT屋！