In my comment view for the last post (comment #1), Piyush Pant writes about the confusion around different pipeline models and frameworks that are popping up all over the place and mentions Proseware, so I need to clarify some things:
I'll address the "too many frameworks" concern first: Proseware's explicit design goal and my job was to use the technologies ASP.NET Web Services, WSE 2.0, IIS, MSMQ, and Enterprise Services as pure as possible and I did intentionally not introduce yet another framework for the runtime bits beyond a few utility classes used by the services as a common infrastructure (like a config-driven web service proxy factory, the queue listener, or the just-in-time activation proxy pooling). What my job was and what I reasonably succeeded at was to show that:
Writing Service Oriented Applications on today's Windows Server 2003 platform does not require yet another framework.
The framework'ish pieces that I had to add are simply addressing some deployment issues like creating accounts, setting ACLs or setting up databases, that need to be done in a "real" app hat isn't a toy. Such things are sometimes difficult to abstract on the level of what the .NET Framework can offer as a general-purpose platform or are simply not there yet. All of these extra classes reside in an isolated assembly that's only used by the installers.
The total number of utility classes that play a role of any importance at runtime is 5 (in words five) and none of them has more than three screen pages worth of actual code. Let me repeat:
Writing Service Oriented Applications on today's Windows Server 2003 platform does not require yet another framework.
I do have a dormant (newtelligence-owned) code branch sitting here that'd make a lot of things in Proseware easier and more elegant to develop and makes reconfiguring services more convenient, but it's a developer convenience and productivity framework. No pipelines, no other architecture, just a prettier shell around the exact Proseware architecture and technologies I chose.
To illustrate my point about the fact that we don't need another entirely new framework, I have here (MessageQueueWebRequest.cs.txt, MessageQueueWebResponse.cs.txt) an early 0.1 prototype copy of our MessageQueueWebRequest/-WebResponse class pair that supports sending WS messages through MSMQ. (That prototype only does very simple one-way messages; you can do a lot more with MSMQ).
Take the code, put it in yours, create a private queue, take an arbitrary ASMX WebService proxy, call MessageQueueWebRequest.RegisterMSMQProtocol() when your app starts, instantiate the proxy, set the Url property of the proxy to msmq://mymachine/private$/myqueue, invoke the proxy and watch how a SOAP message materializes in the queue.
Next step: use a WSE proxy. Works too. I'll leave the receiver logic to your imagination, but that's not really much more than listening to the queue and throwing the message into a WSE 2.0 SoapMethod or throwing it as a raw HTTP request at an ASMX WebMethod or by using a SimpleWorkerRequest on a self-hosted ASP.NET AppDomain (just like WebMatrix's Cassini hosts that stuff).
On to "pipelines" in the same context: Pipelines are a very common design pattern and you can find hundreds of variations of them in many projects (likely dozens from MS) which all have some sort of a notion of a pipeline. It's just "pipeline", not Pipeline(tm) 2003 SP1.
User-extensible pipeline models are a nice idea, but I don't think they are very useful to have or consider for most services of the type that Proseware has (and that covers a lot of types).
Frankly, most things that are done with pipelines in generalized architectures that wrap around endpoints (in/out crosscutting pipelines) and that are not about "logging" (which is, IMHO, more useful if done explicitly and in-context) are already in the existing technology stack (Enterprise Services, WSE) or are really jobs for other services.
There is no need to invent another pipeline to process custom headers in ASMX, if you have SoapExtensions. There is no need to invent a new pipeline model to do WS-Security, if you can plug the WSE 2.0 pipeline into the ASMX SoapExtension pipeline already. There is no need to invent a new pipeline model to push a new transaction context on the stack, if you can hook the COM+ context pipeline into your call chain by using ES. There is no need to invent another pipeline for authorization, if you can hook arbitrary custom stuff into the ASP.NET Http Pipeline or the WSE 2.0 pipeline already has or simply use what the ES context pipeline gives you.
I just enumerated four (!) different pipeline models and all of them are in the bits you already have on a shipping platform today and as it happens, all of them compose really well with each other. The fact that I am writing this might show that most of us just use and configure their services without even thinking of them as a composite pipeline model.
"We don't need another Pipeline" (I want Tina Turner to sing that for me).
Of course there's other pipeline jobs, right? Mapping!
Well, mapping between schemas is something that goes against the notion of a well-defined contract of a service. Either you have a well-defined contract or two or three or you don't. If you have a well-defined contract and there's a sender that doesn't adhere to it, it's the job of another service to provide that sort of data negotiation, because that's a business-logic task in and by itself.
Umm ... ah! Validation!
That might be true if schema validation is enough, but validation of data is a business logic level task if things get more complex (like if you need to check a PO against your catalog and need to check whether that customer is actually entitled to get a certain discount bracket). That's not a cross-cutting concern. That's a core job of the app.
Pipelines are for plumbers
Now, before I confuse everyone (and because Piyush mentioned it explicitly):
FABRIQ is a wholly different ballgame, because it is precisely a specialized architecture for dynamically distributable, queued (pull-model), one-way pipeline message processing and that does require a bit of a framework, because the platform doesn't readily support it.
We don't really have a notion of an endpoint in FABRIQ that is the default terminal for any message arriving at a node. We just let stuff asynchronously flow in one direction and across machines and handlers can choose to look at, modify, absorb or yield resultant messages into the pipeline as a result of what they do. In that model, the pipeline is the application. Very different story, very different sets of requirements, very different optimization potential and not really about services in the first place (although we stick to the tenets), but rather about distributing work dynamically and about doing so as fast as we can make it go.
Sorry, Piyush! All of that totally wasn't going against your valued comments, but you threw a lit match into a very dry haystack.