Just caught myself coding this up. The shown method is a Windows Forms event handler for a menu item. The task at hand is to check a local variable and if that’s set to a specific value, to switch to a different thread and perform an action (that particular job can’t be done on the Windows Forms STA thread), and to close the form back on the main STA thread once that’s done. I colored the executing threads; yellow is the Windows Forms STA thread, blue is an arbitrary pool thread. Works brilliantly. Sick, eh?

[Mind that I am using ThreadStart just because it’s a convenient void target(void) delegate]

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8
If you are in a hurry and all you want is the code, scroll down to the bottom. ;)
And for the few who are still reading: This is the 9^th and final part of this series, which turned out to be a little bigger than planned. And if you read all parts up to here, you have meanwhile figured out that the extensions that I have presented here are not only about REST and POX but primarily a demonstration of how customizable Indigo is for your own needs.  Indigo – Indigo was really a cool code-name. Just like many folks on the Indigo WCF team it’s a bit difficult for me to trade it for a clunky moniker like WCF, and it seems that this somewhat reflects public opinion. Much less am I inclined to really spell out “Windows Communication Foundation” in presentations, because that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue like a poem, does it? But, hey, there’s always the namespace name and that doesn’t suck. “Service Model” is what everyone will be using in code. We don’t need three-letter acronyms, or do we?
But I digress. I’ve explained a complete set of extensions that outfit the service model with the ability to receive and respond to HTTP requests with arbitrary payloads and without SOAP envelopes and do so by dispatching to request handlers (method) by matching the request URI and the HTTP method against metadata that we stick on the methods using attributes.
And now I’ll show you the “Hello World!” for the extensions and about the simplest thing I can think of is a web server  In fact, you already have the complete configuration file for this sample; I showed you that in Part 8.
Since things like “Hello World!” are supposed to be simple and it’s ok not to make that a full coverage test case, we start with the following, very plain contract:

By now that should not need much explanation. The Get() method receives all HTTP GET requests on the URI suffix “/*” whereby “*” is a wildcard. In other words, all GET requests go to that method.
The implementation of the service is pretty simple.  I am implementing it as a singleton service that is constructed passing a directory name (path).
The Get() implementation gets the URI of the incoming request from the To header of the message’s Headers collection. (Note that the HTTP transport maps the incoming request’s absolute URI to that header once the encoder has constructed the message.)  

Once we’ve done a few checks on the URIs path portion, we construct a file path from the base directory and the URI path, check whether such a file exists, and if it does we create a message for that file and return it. If we can’t find the resulting file name, we construct a 404 “not found” error message. The UnknownMessage() method receives all requests with HTTP methods other than GET and appropriately returns a 501 “not implemented” message. Web server done.
Well, ok. The actual messages are constructed in a helper class PoxMessages that aids in constructing the most common reply messages. The class is part of the extension assembly code you can download and therefore I just quote the relevant methods that are used above. We’ll start with PoxMessages.CreateErrorMessage(), because that its very simple:

We create a plain, empty service model Message, create an HttpResponseMessageProperty instance, set the StatusCode to the status code we want and add the property to the message. Return, done.
The PoxMessages.CreateFileReplyMessage() method is a bit more complex, because it, well, involves opening files. I am not showing you the exact overload that’s used in the above example but the one that’s being delegated to:  

The implementation will first make a guess for the file’s content-type based on the file-name, which is a simple registry lookup with a fallback to application/octet-stream.  Then it’ll try to open the file using a FileStream object. If that works –  ignoring the special case with rangeOffset/rangeLength being set – we delegate to the CreateRawReplyMessage() method:

That method takes the stream, wraps it in our PoxStreamedMessage, sets all desired HTTP headers on the HttpResponseMessageProperty, adds the property to the message and lastly adds the PoxEncoderMessageProperty indicating that we want the encoder to operate in raw binary mode. However, all these helper methods are already part of the library and therefore the application code doesn’t really have to deal with all of that anymore. You just construct the fitting message, stick the content into it and return it.
So now we have a service class and what’s left to do is to host it. For that we need a simple service host with a tiny little twist. Since the ServiceMetadataBehavior that typically gives you the WSDL file and the service information page would conflict with our direct interaction with HTTP, we need to switch it off. We do that by removing it from the list of behaviors before the service is initialized.

The rest is just normal business for hosting and setting up a service model service in a console application. We read the first argument from the command-line and assume that’s a directory name. We verify that that is indeed so, construct the service host passing the singleton new’ed up with the directory name. We open the service host and we have the web server listening. The details for how the service is exposed on the network is the job of configuration and binding and, again, exhaustively explained in Part 8.

Below is the downloadable archive that contains two C# projects. Newtelligence.ServiceModelExtensions contains the extension set and LittleIndigoWebServer is the above demo app. The code complies and works with the WinFX November and December CTPs.

If you have installed Visual Studio on drive C: you should be able to run the sample immediately with F5, since the LittleIndigoWebServer project’s debugging settings pass the .NET SDK directory to the application on startup. So if you have that, start the server, and then browse http://localhost:8020/StartHere.htm you get this:

Otherwise, you can just start the server using any directory of your choosing, preferably one with HTML content.

And that’s it. I am happy that I’ve got all of the stuff out. This is probably the most documentation I’ve ever written in one stretch for some public giveaway infrastructure, but I am sure it’s worth it. I will follow up with more examples using these extensions. For instance I will show to use this for actual POX apps (the web server is just spitting out raw data, after all) using RSS, OPML and ASX. Stay tuned.

Oh, and … if you like this stuff I’d be happy about comments, questions, blog mentions and, first and foremost, public examples of other people using this stuff. License is BSD: Use as you like, risk is all yours, mention the creators. Enjoy.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

We’ve got all the moving pieces and what’s left is a way to configure the PoxEncoder into bindings and use those to hook a service up to the network and run it.

Bindings? Well, all Indigo (WCF) services need to know their ABC to function. ABC? I’ll quote from my WCF Introduction on MSDN:

A binding is a layered combination of a transport, an encoder and of any additional protocol channels (reliable session, transaction flow, etc.) that you’d like to assemble into a transport stack for exposing a service implementation on a specific endpoint address.

For exposing a HTTP-based RESTish service we need:

A.    The HTTP address to host the service at.

B.     Some binding configuration that tells Indigo’s HTTP transport to use our PoxEncoder.

C.     An implementation of a service-contract that’s configured (using the HttpMethodOperationSelectorSection config extension) or marked-up (with the HttpMethodOperationSelectorAttribute) to use our HttpMethodOperationSelectorBehavior for endpoint address filtering and selecting methods.

I’ve shown you quite a few contract variants in the first parts of this series and therefore I don’t really have to explain the C in too much detail anymore; except: While the A is just a plain HTTP address such as http://www.example.com/service, it’s interesting insofar as this address is, unlike as with SOAP services, really just the common address prefix for the dispatch URIs of the particular service and that there is a split between what is A and what is C.

As I’ve explained, the philosophy behind the contract design of my extensions is around the namespaces that are the basis for forming URIs. Because REST services aren’t simply using HTTP as a transport tunnel as SOAP services do, but rather leverage HTTP as the application protocol it is, the URI is a lot more than just a drop-off point for messages. With REST services, the URI is an expression that has both, addressing (transport) and contract (dispatch) aspects to it and we need to separate those out. A clear distinction between global and local namespaces allows us to do that (And I am going into a bit more detail than I usually would, to further address an objection of Mark Baker, 1^st comment, on my choice of the programming model):

There is a global namespace that’s managed by the global DNS system of which anyone can reserve a chunk for themselves by registering a domain-name. The domain-name provides a self-manageable namespace root of which sub-namespaces (subdomains) can be derived and allocated to specific hosts/services or groups of hosts/services by the domain owners. On the particular host, you can put an application behind a specific port, which might either the default port of your particular application protocol or – diverging from the protocol standard – some other port of your choosing. Each Internet application deployment has therefore at least one unique mapping into this global namespace system.

Any further segmentation of the namespace except the host-name and the port-number are private matters of the application listing to that endpoint. With Indigo self-hosted HTTP services, the listening application is Windows (!) – more precisely it’s the HTTP.SYS kernel listener. For IIS/WAS hosted services, the listening application is IIS (for IIS 5.1 and below) or, again, Windows – through that very listener. At the HTTP.SYS listener, handler processes can register their interest in requests sent to certain sub-namespaces of the global namespace mapping (host/port), which are identified by relative URIs. To be clear: The HTTP.SYS API indeed requires the caller to provide an absolute URI like http://hostname:port/service, but the two main parts (scheme/host/port and path) of that URI are used for different purposes:

·         Global mapping: The hostname and port are used to establish a new listener on that particular port (if there is already a listener it is shared) and to populate the hostname-filter table that’s used to disambiguate requests by the Host header in case the IP address is mapped to multiple DNS host entries.

·         Local mapping: The path information of the URI (the remaining relative URI with scheme, hostname and port stripped) is used as a prefix-matching expression to figure out which handler process shall receive the request and, inside that handler process, to further identify and invoke the appropriate endpoint and handler that deals with the resource that the complete URI path represents.

As indicated, mapping URIs to an endpoint needs to distinguish between how we segment and map a local namespace and how we hook that into the global namespace. Hence, the root for any absolute URIs that’s establishing the mapping into the global namespace shall always be separate from the code and reside in configuration for reasons of flexibility as Mark was rightfully pointing out in his objection, while the shape and mapping of the local namespace is typically very application and use-case specific and might well be partially or entirely hardwired.

·         The Indigo A(ddress) of a REST service implemented with my particular programming model is used to hook a given service (or resource representation manager, if you like) into the global namespace: http://myservice.example.com/. Only to be pragmatic and to allow multiple such services to locally share a particular hostname and port and indeed only as an alternative and workaround to creating a separate DNS entry for each service, that mapping might include a path prefix allowing the local low-level infrastructure to demultiplex requests sent to the same global namespace mapping: http://myservices.example.com/serviceA and http://myservices.example.com/serviceB.

·         The Indigo C(ontract) of a REST service implemented with my particular programming model is used to define the shape of the local namespace that the service owns and which is used to provide access to the representations of the resource-types the service is responsible for.

The following configuration snippet for a simple web-server based on my extensions is illustrating that split:

The address http://localhost:8020/ is how I map the service into the global addressing namespace. The local namespace shape for that particular service is a defined by the layout of the file-system directory from which the service grabs files and returns them. What? You can’t see the directory structure and the resulting URLs from the above mapping? Of course not. It’s a private matter of the service implementation what that the local namespace structure is and it’s up to me what parts I am exposing. If I am nice enough I will give you something on a GET/HEAD request on the root of my local namespace (= global address without any suffix), and if I am not nice you get a 404 and will just have to know what to ask for. The “will have to know” part is contract. It’s an assurance that if you come looking at a particular place in my namespace you will have access to a particular thing. My [HttpMethod] attributes manifest that assurance on Indigo contracts.

That leaves B. Before I got carried away by A and C, I wrote [now a bit annotated] “A binding is a layered combination of a transport, an encoder and of any additional protocol channels (reliable session, transaction flow, etc.) that you’d like to assemble into a transport stack for exposing a service implementation [C] on a specific endpoint address [A].”

Putting together such a binding is not much more work than putting a little text between angle brackets and quotation marks in config as shown in the following snippet:

I am building a custom binding that’s combining the HTTP transport with a custom binding element config extension I built for the PoxEncoder. It’s that simple. And adding the binding element extension does not require black magic, either. It’s just another XML snippet that maps the extension class to an element name (“poxEncoder”) as you can see in the extensions section of the complete config file:

The PoxEncoderBindingExtension is a class that is based on System.ServiceModel.Configuration.BindingElementExtensionSection. Whenever the configuration is processed by Indigo, the presence of the “poxEncoder” element in a binding triggers the creation of an instance of the class and if we’d require any configuration attributes (which we don’t), those would be stuffed into the Properties collection.    

Once the configuration information has been read, the extension is asked to create a BindingElement from the acquired information. So these extensions are really just factories for binding elements. The binding element, which can also be used to compose such a binding in code by explicitly adding it to a System.ServiceModel.CustomBinding is shown below:

Binding elements are typically used to put together client-side (channel factory) or service-side (channel listener) transport stacks. At the bottom is the transport and layered on top of it are security, reliable sessions, transaction flow and all other protocol features you need. Each protocol or feature on the channel/listener level has its own binding element and using those you configure yourself a binding combining the features you need and in the order that they should be applied.

The binding elements for message encoders are a bit different, because they are not contributing their own channel factories or channel listeners into the stack, but rather “only” supply the message encoder for the configured transport.

Whenever a binding is instantiated, Indigo creates a ChannelBuildContext which contains the sequence of the binding elements that shall be stacked onto each other into a channel or listener stack and starts stacking them from top to bottom by invoking the topmost binding element’s BuildChannelListener or BuildChannelFactory method. Once the binding element is done creating its channel factory or channel listener, it invokes BuildInnerChannel[Listener/Factory] on the context to have the binding element underneath do its work. (The context is also used to validate whether combination of the elements yields a functional binding stack, but I won’t go into that here).

Our binding element, however, won’t create a channel factory or listener, but rather put itself into the UnhandledBindingElements collection on the build context and will then just have the context complete the construction work. With putting itself into that collection, the binding element makes itself and its most irresistible feature (you’d also think that if you were an Indigo transport) – the IMessageEncodingBindingElement implementation – visible to the transport and waves its hand that it wants to be used. The transport’s binding element, which is at the bottom of the stack and therefore asked to build its channel factory/listener after our binding element has been invoked, will go look in the UnhandledBindingElements  collection whether a message encoding binding element is advertising itself for use. And if that’s so it will forget all of its de