Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
In Learning WCF, by Michele Bustamante, there is a section that describes a binding called the NetNamedPipes binding. The book says that this binding can only be used for WCF services that will be called exclusively from the same machine.
Under what circumstances would it make sense to use this? Ordinarily, I would write asynchronous code without using WCF… Why would Microsoft provide something for WCF that can only run on the same machine?
Look at it from the other direction. Once the service is built, you can run in in a variety of binding configurations. If it was a remote machine, you could use the HTTP or TCP bindings. Or, the service happened to be running on the same box, you have those options plus the named pipes option. The named pipes is just another option that is provided just in case you are running locally, but you should be able to switch to a different binding if you are running remote.
Yu could start with everything on the same box because you have less traffic, and use named pipes because it was the shortest path to the service. Then, if load demanded it, you can move the service to another box, and then change it to use TCP or HTTP instead.