Programming JSON with WCF in .NET Framework 3.5

Download this episode

Download Video

Description

Technical Evangelist Matt Winkler meets up with Eugene Osovetsky and Ghenadie Plingau, a PM and developer, from the WCF team to talk about returning JSON from a WCF service. JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is s text based serialization of a JavaScript object, allowing one to new up a variable right from the string of JSON. Eugene hows how a developer can use the WCF programming model to serve JSON to AJAX clients. We also talk about how this is implemented in WCF as well as cool applications of this, namely to call WCF services from AJAX. He then shows off a cool tank game sample that allows two individuals to compete via a JavaScript game that is communicating with WCF.

Tags:

Ajax, JSON, WCF

Embed

Format

Available formats for this video:

Actual format may change based on video formats available and browser capability.

    The Discussion

    • User profile image
      BlackTiger
      Looks like MS extremely close to create next "hell" - "frameworks hell".

      "1.0" - just a joke, "first pancake"
      "1.1" - standalone framework
      "2.0" - standalone framework
      "3.0" - addition to "2.0"
      "3.5" - addition to "3.0" ("2.0")

      And ALL frameworks are installed on the same PC in same time... Why?

      "C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET" folder = 140MB!
    • User profile image
      mwink
      Not all frameworks are installed on the machine at the same time.  1.0 and 1.1 and 2.0 are all separate and can be installed independently.  3.0 and 3.5 both build upon 2.0 (3.0 on 2.0, 3.5 on 3.0), so they will be installed together.

      the reason they are each installed is that they are additive (in the case of 3.0 and 3.5) so that you don't have to lay down a complete version of the framework each time. 

      Jason Zander has a good video here (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=218663) that addresses a lot of this and why.
    • User profile image
      odujosh

      I think the commentary is be smarter about how you distribute dlls. If 2.0 folder exists. Use the DLLs you can there and just add 3.0 dlls ADDITIVE DLLs.

      The unabashed truth and maybe you can comment on this more:
      Microsoft takes the least resistant path to distribution. Not the smartest.

      If Microsoft wanted to it could logically figure out which DLLs are needed and install those.

      The answer you are shying away from, Matt is Microsoft is not committed to optimizing the framework install process. 

    • User profile image
      mwink
      Right, ok, I get what you're saying, I was answering more why there are the individual folders.

      I don't have a lot of insight into why the packages and install work the way that they do.  I will send some emails and try to get a response on that one.
    • User profile image
      justinjsmith

      The 1.0 and 1.1 directories are there for compatability reasons. If you compile an application for 1.1 and you have 3.0 installed, it will run on the CLR used by the .NET Framework 3.0.

      If you install the .NET Framework 1.1 on that machine, that same application will run on the .NET Framework 1.1.

      The folder structure (and the config files in them) are part of the mechanism that provides that CLR affinity. This was and is a feature set important to our user community and partner ecosystem.

      I do think we are commited to optimizing the .NET Framework install process, and I don't think one can measure that by a single metric like footprint. We have other products (Silverlight 1.0 and 1.1) that have a much smaller footprint.

      --Justin Smith
      http://blogs.msdn.com/justinjsmith

    • User profile image
      lazyfish
      Hi,

      Is it possible to make that tank project available for us to try?

      Reggie
    • User profile image
      Luigi65

      hello Guys,

      do you think we have the view capacity of superman? the video qulaity sucks and is impossible to read any single line of code.

      Please next time use different type of recording otherwise the video is worthless and would be better to post a podcast.

       

      Luigi

    Comments closed

    Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.