Why asp.net web api

Uses routing and controller concept similar to ASP. Uses Service, Operation and Data contracts. Does not support Reliable Messaging and transaction.

Supports Reliable Messaging and Transactions. Uses web. Ideal for building RESTful services. Supports RESTful services but with limitations. I would like to have your feedback. Please post your feedback, question, or comments about this article series.

To gain the advantage of these ASP. Net Framework 3. If you have some knowledge of Restful services then it will be an added advantage for you. Note: If we missed any concept of ASP. NET Web API, then please let us know by giving a comment in the comment box and we promise as soon as possible we will make an article and published it in this course. Your email address will not be published.

Skip to content. Course Information. And when you need to customize or do something that is not built in, there are lots of hooks and overrides for most behaviors, and even many low level hook points that allow you to plug in custom functionality with relatively little effort.

There are a few scenarios that are a slam dunk for Web API. You can isolate the logic in Web API and build your application as a service breaking out the logic into controllers as needed.

Perfect fit. Again because much if not most of the business logic will probably end up in your Web API service logic, there's no confusion over where logic should go and there's no duplication. If you need to implement an image server, or an upload handler in the past I'd implement that as an HTTP handler.

With Web API you now have a well defined place where you can implement these types of generic 'services' in a location that can easily add endpoints via Controller methods or separated out as more full featured APIs. Granted this could be done with MVC as well, but Web API seems a clearer and more well defined place to store generic application services. Great fit. A lot of people have asked when does it make sense to use MVC vs. Ultimately there's a tradeoff between isolation of functionality and duplication.

A good rule of thumb I think works is that if a large chunk of the application's functionality serves data Web API is a good choice, but if you have a couple of small AJAX requests to serve data to a grid or autocomplete box it'd be overkill to separate out that logic into a separate Web API controller. NET so it should be worth it. I suspect and hope that in the future Web API's functionality will merge even closer with MVC so that you might even be able to mix functionality of both into single Controllers so that you don't have to make any trade offs, but at the moment that's not the case.

More often than not though the same logic is used, and there's no easy way to share. One comment that caught my eye was a little more generic, regarding data services vs. HTML services. David says:. I see a lot of merit in the combination of Knockout.

You know what - I can totally relate to that. While there are definitely more bytes on the wire, with this, the overhead ended up being actually fairly small if you keep the 'data' requests small and atomic. Performance was often made up by the lack of client side rendering of HTML. Server rendered HTML for AJAX templating gives so much better infrastructure support without having to screw around with 20 mismatched client libraries.