• My wife loves me. I’m a very lucky man.
• I’m starting to really dig Safari Books Online. Having a tablet really helps here, I can sit in bed and read and it’s ALMOST like reading a real book. Is there an offline experience? Something like the NYTimes WPF Reader app would be killer.
• I’m not a Twitter guy, but I like the idea of using it to publish CI results. Not quite as cool as using the Ambient Orb, but close. (via DotNetKicks)
• Soma details the dogfood usage of TFS in Developer Division. Sorta interesting if you’re into knowing that stuff. Brian Harry apparently has much more.
• I realize that linking to Pat Helland every time he writes something is fairly redundant. If you want his feed, you know where to find it. But he writes great stuff! The latest is Accountants Don’t Use Erasers, which talks about append-only computing. His point that the database is a cache of the transaction log is mind blowing, yet makes total sense.
• Bruce Payette blogs a PS DSL for creating XML documents.
• Jesus Rodriguez details WCF’s new Durable Service support in .NET 3.5. I get the need for the [DurableServiceBehavior] attribute, but do I really have to adorn each of the service methods with [DurableOperationBehavior] too? That seems redundant. Also, I wonder how this looks at the channel layer?
• Speaking of WCF’s channel layer, I recently picked up a copy of Inside Windows Communication Foundation by Justin Smith. This is the first book I’ve found that has more coverage of the channel layer than the service layer, so I like it.
• Dare writes about Web3S, Windows Live’s general purpose REST protocol. Apparently, WL started with Atom Publishing Protocol, but found that it didn’t meet their needs around hierarchy and granular updates. David Ing says it’s “not that similar” to my concept of REST, but I going to read the spec before I comment.
• Scott Hanselman writes about how he learned to program and some thoughts about teaching his son. Patrick has recently started expressing interest in programming (he want’s to do what Daddy does). At four, I’m thinking I’ll start him on Scratch (though ToonTalk looks interesting). As he gets older, I was thinking about Squeak, though I’m a smalltalk noob. I really like Scott’s idea of creating a connection to the physical world via something like Mindstorms. Patrick loves Lego almost as much as his dad, so that would be cool.

• 3D Printing is going to be huge. According to the NYT, we’ll be looking at around $1,000 for one within four years. For the impatient, check out Fab@Home and build one right now.
• It’s been a while since I experimented with the P2P stack in Windows, but it looks like it’s getting the managed treatment in VS “Orcas”.
• The managed Ruby hits keep on coming. Last week was DLR and IronRuby. This week it’s a new drop of Ruby.NET which includes VS integration.
• Looks like Sun is trying to get back into the Ajax/Flash/Silverlight fray with JavaFX Script. I wrote over a year ago that “In platform portability, Flash has succeeded where Java failed.” I can’t help but believe JavaFX is too little too late. Also, it’s yet another Java technology name that sounds like it’s been blatantly copied from MSFT. JDBC, JSP, JDO … What’s next? JINQ? (via TechMeme)
• Steve Maine has a great series of posts on the new Web Programming Model that’s coming in .NET 3.5 and is currently being previewed as part of the BizTalk Services SDK. But it was his Balancing reach and rich post that I found most illuminating. The first version of WCF feels hopelessly bound to the WS-* view of the world, which makes it difficult to incorporate alternative messaging models into the same programming model. I’ve run into this trying to use SSB with WCF. In the next version, that WCF / WS-* marriage looks like it’s getting a little more open. In my current role, I’m not so interested in the web programming model, but I am very interested in how they are integrating these alternative models.

• Nicholas Allen points out that Messaging is not a Transaction. Of course, what he really means is that Messaging with WCF is not a Transaction. Messaging with SSB is in fact a transaction (well, more accurately, it’s transactional but you get the idea). Nick’s right that you may not need anything more than simple retry semantics that you can implement yourself in your application protocol. But SSB has spoiled me. Why should I have to write the retry semantics? Why can’t my messaging stack provide that for me? Or put another way, if I need a “precicely defined failure model”, wouldn’t I be better of choosing a messaging stack that provides that out of the box?
• Steve Hartman explains how to use span Remote Desktop Connection across multiple monitors for use with VPC. I wonder if this will work on my machine, since my multi-monitor setup is an L shape, not a rectangle. I’m offsite today, so I’ll try it tomorrow (via DotNetKicks)
• According to news reports, Microsoft is negotiating to provide DRM free music too. I wonder how well this will work for Microsoft given that both Zune and PlaysForSure provide subscription services. I would assume the $15 all-you-can-listen style subscription services wouldn’t be DRM free. Given that program is one of the (few) selling points they have over Apple, will the availablity of DRM Free music undercut the interest in subscription? (via Dale)

Nick Allen asked on his blog about how people would like to see SSB and WCF work together. He’s already heard these from me, but I figured I’d put them out there for everyone to see and debate. Plus, I had several beers last night at the MVP dinner, so this is likely to be more coherent than I was yesterday! 😄

1. Are you interested in SSB because you’d like to have your service closer to the database? How close is close enough to the database?

I’ve first blogged about the endangered middle tier almost three years ago. My point at the time was that as you break your monolithic system up into services, the vast majority of those services won’t need to scale out. You performance gets better the closer you are to the data. If you don’t need to scale out, why not get the maximum boost by running in the database process itself?

Furthermore, in large IT shops, the database files are stored out on the SAN rather than on hard drives attached to the database server itself. That means the database server is effectively stateless. Why add a second stateless tier if you don’t need scale out? If you need more performance in a given service, you can detach the database file from it’s current SQL server box and attach it on another more beefy SQL server box without physically moving the database files at all. This enables what I call the “Star Trek Effect”, where you can shift computing power where it is needed most (more power to the payroll system!).

Of course, if you’re going to move the service, you do need to bring it down for a short time. That implies a need for durable messaging so that service consumers aren’t affected by the brief service interruption. Which brings us to…

2. Are you interested in SSB because you need durable, duplex messaging between two services? Do you need exactly-once-in-order message delivery?

Yes. SSB has a bunch of other nice features, but durable duplex messaging is what I need the most. Exactly-once-in-order is also fairly critical, though there may be scenarios where it’s not really necessary. Those are the exception, not the rule however.

Doesn’t WS-RM already do EOIO already?

3. Are you interested in using SSB from WCF because you want a better asynchronous messaging experience than MSMQ? What makes you prefer SSB to other queuing products?

My primary problem with MSMQ for the problems I’m tasked with solving is that MSMQ is one way while SSB supports duplex messaging. You could do duplex messaging with MSMQ if you didn’t mind managing multiple queues (one for each side of the conversation) but SSB does this for you for free. I’m sure there are scenarios where pure one-way messaging are useful, but they are few and far between in my day job.

Furthermore, SSB has the explicit idea of a service instance (they call it a conversation group) which MSMQ lacks. SSB’s implementation is conceptually similar to the new WCF/WF integration work in the latest Orcas CTP.

Finally, SSB uses logical naming. You have conversations between services, but services get mapped to physical addresses at the routing layer. This allows services to move around more easily (see the “Star Trek Effect” in #1 above). Both MSMQ and WCF use physical addresses, which makes them much more difficult to move.

4. Are you interested in having your data contracts defined in WCF, SQL, or both?

I like WCF’s data contract infrastructure. We did a early prototype long-running service with both WCF and SSB. the messaging stack code was obviously different, but we used the exact same data contract code. I even wrote some code to automatically deserialize the SSB message by mapping the SSB message type to a data contract.

I want my services to run inside the database, but that doesn’t mean I want to write them in T-SQL. Personally, I’m much more productive in C# and/or WF. So WCF data contracts are fine by me.

• Yesterday’s morning coffee was canceled on account of going to main campus and hanging out with the Architect MVPs. I spent all morning + dinner with them yesterday. Some of these guys I hadn’t seen in nearly two years, so it was a ton of fun.
• Nicolas Allen (aka Dr. Nick) is looking for SQL Service Broker users. I cornered him at the MVP dinner last night and gave him my thoughts on WCF + SSB. You can head over to his blog and do the same. (I’ll post my answers to his questions later today, hopefully)
• The new Vista x64 driver for my workstation’s video card does support monior rotation, so I’m mostly XP free at this point. I’m dual-booting my workstation at this point, while I finish configuring stuff in the Vista partition. With both my workstation and work laptop tablet, I’m XP free at work. Next, I start getting home machines moved over.
• Tom Hollander reports on a new drop of the Guidance Automation Toolkit. Mostly bug fixes like Vista support, but the full list is here. It’s an ugly upgrade process. You have to uninstall all existing guidance packages. I can’t wait until this technology is “integrate[d] … more deeply into Visual Studio and Team System”.
• I mentioned the Podcast Authoring tool that I saw at TechFest last week. Herearesome pictures of it from engadget (via Loke Uei Tan)
• I’ve been thinking of getting a Wii, and the fact I can hack code for it – managed code for managed snobs no less – is just another good reason to do it. (via DotNetKicks)