It gets me when application frameworks tamper with core web concepts of precisely what they are trying to solve. If you have WCF services exposed through any of its different endpoints, you have to do the most ridiculous dancing to get something as simple as the HttpContext. WTF is up with that Microsoft!?!
There are like 10 different ways to access HttpContext and Request Headers, all weird in their own ways, none of them standard, and requiring the callers to add headers in different and specific ways:
- There is HttpContext (or this.Context or HttpContext.Current): “Gets or sets the HttpContext object for the current HTTP request” This would be the obvious choice, but the WCF team needed to get COMPLICATED! To support this, you have to add extra magic and attributes to your service contracts (read here)
- Then we get fancy with something that is not quite the HttpContext the WEB knows and loves, but some new BS called OperationContext (OperationContext .Current). MSDN explains: “Provides access to the execution context of a service method”... but off-course!
- Also HttpContextBase class according to MSDN “serves as the base class for classes that contain HTTP-specific information about an individual HTTP request”. So, you’d only think that HttpContextBase is the base class of HttpContext right? WRONG!
Hmmm, at this point you think this might be a brain teaser. There may be another 2-3 ways to access data from a similar concepts. If inspecting the HttpContext on the server side is a nightmare, managing headers and contextual http request elements on the client is even worse if your client is using the generated WCF contracts from VS. Here you are either setting something called ‘OutgoingMessageHeaders’ on an http request (like there is something that can be ‘incoming’ during a request), or you are implementing a custom IClientMessageInspector and altering the request before it is sent to the server: what is this the Police Academy (Inspector, pffff)? Why do I need to inspect a message I built? Or why am I forced to do this kind of crap?
This is so frustrating I cannot cope with the unnecessary layers of engineering and noise the WCF team threw over such a simple concept. I have nothing against new and different ways to solve problems, but please don’t call it the same as something that already exists and it’s well defined by the HTTP protocol specification (RFC 2616). PLEASE. DON'T.
I’ll try working around it with Rick Strahl’s post. If I keep having problems, I’ll move out to a different framework, implement my IHttpHandler, or downplay WCF’s capabilities.