It is a binding that returns metadata so you can build a proxy at the client side. See [here][1]. More [here][2] as well.


  [1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms734765.aspx
  [2]: http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/dennis/archive/2006/11/09/WCF-Part-4-_3A00_-Make-your-service-visible-through-metadata.aspx

mexHTTPBinding allows to use [WS-MetadataExchange][1] over HTTP. You don&#39;t need it unless you implemented policies which may change over time and you need to discover your service with UDDI for example

Many people says it&#39;s needed for creating client side proxies. This is not true. For client side proxies you need to publish WSDL. You can do that by specifying &lt;serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled=&quot;True&quot;&gt; in your service behavior.

Shortly, you don&#39;t know it -&gt; you don&#39;t need it.


  [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-metadata-exchange-20090317/

mexHttpBinding is used while adding a new Service Reference in a Project in Visual Studio 2013 (DEBUG) that will consume your WebService (providing the mexHttpBinding). After you&#39;ve added the Service Reference successfully you might disable the mexHttpBinding.

It is all described in the App.config when you&#39;re creating a WCF Service Library Project in the Visual Studio 2013 ( Solution &gt;&gt; Add New Project &gt;&gt; Visual C# &gt;&gt; WCF &gt;&gt; WCF Service Library)

If we let users input a couple of ip ranges, e.g., 172.16.11.5 - 100, how could I write a function to check if a IP (172.16.11.50) falls in the ranges?

Is there any existing library in .NET to leverage?


How to check a input IP fall in a specific IP range

I&#39;ve been thinking about it lately, and it seems to me that most advantages given to **JIT** compilation should more or less be attributed to the intermediate format instead, and that jitting in itself is not much of a good way to generate code.

So these are the main **pro-JIT** compilation arguments I usually hear:

1. **Just-in-time compilation allows for greater portability.** Isn&#39;t that attributable to the intermediate format? I mean, nothing keeps you from compiling your virtual bytecode into native bytecode once you&#39;ve got it on your machine. Portability is an issue in the &#39;distribution&#39; phase, not during the &#39;running&#39; phase.
1. **Okay, then what about generating code at runtime?** Well, the same applies. Nothing keeps you from integrating a just-in-time compiler for a real just-in-time need into your native program.
1. **But the runtime compiles it to native code just once anyways, and stores the resulting executable in some sort of cache somewhere on your hard drive.** Yeah, sure. But it&#39;s optimized your program under time constraints, and it&#39;s not making it better from there on. See the next paragraph.

It&#39;s not like **ahead-of-time** compilation had no advantages either. **Just-in-time** compilation has time constraints: you can&#39;t keep the end user waiting forever while your program launches, so it has a tradeoff to do somewhere. Most of the time they just optimize less. A friend of mine had _profiling evidence_ that inlining functions and unrolling loops &quot;manually&quot; (obfuscating source code in the process) had a positive impact on performance on his **C#** number-crunching program; doing the same on my side, with my **C** program filling the same task, yielded no positive results, and I believe this is due to the extensive transformations my compiler was allowed to make. 

And yet we&#39;re surrounded by jitted programs. **C#** and **Java** are everywhere, Python scripts can compile to some sort of bytecode, and I&#39;m sure a whole bunch of other programming languages do the same. There must be a good reason that I&#39;m missing. So what makes **just-in-time** compilation so superior to **ahead-of-time** compilation?


----------


**EDIT** To clear some confusion, maybe it would be important to state that I&#39;m all for an intermediate representation of executables. This has a lot of advantages (and really, most arguments for **just-in-time** compilation are actually arguments for an intermediate representation). My question is about how they should be compiled to native code.

Most runtimes (or compilers for that matter) will prefer to either compile them just-in-time or ahead-of-time. As **ahead-of-time** compilation looks like a better alternative to me because the compiler has more time to perform optimizations, I&#39;m wondering why Microsoft, Sun and all the others are going the other way around. I&#39;m kind of dubious about profiling-related optimizations, as my experience with **just-in-time** compiled programs displayed poor basic optimizations.

I used an example with C code only because I needed an example of **ahead-of-time** compilation versus **just-in-time** compilation. The fact that **C** code wasn&#39;t emitted to an intermediate representation is irrelevant to the situation, as I just needed to show that **ahead-of-time** compilation can yield better immediate results.

What are the advantages of just-in-time compilation versus ahead-of-time compilation?

What is &quot;mexHttpBinding&quot; in WCF? When should this binding be used in preference to other bindings?

What is &quot;mexHttpBinding&quot;?

<p>What is "mexHttpBinding" in WCF? When should this binding be used in preference to other bindings?</p>


I&#39;m looking for a &quot;top ten&quot; list of reasons why we should be connecting to remote databases via web service instead of directly connecting to the db. This is an internal debate right now and I&#39;m pro-web service but losing the argument. I have a basic grasp of WCF / web services, no one else does. We can do whatever we want moving forward but we need to stick with whatever we choose now.

Here is what I&#39;ve come up with. Any more?

1. WCF web services can, if configured correctly, be more secure.
2. Changes to the DB only need to be made at the service level (config file or recompile service).
3. Once setup and hosted, web services are easier to consume.



Why should a developer use web services instead of direct connections to a db?

Ok, what I have: 

Visual Studio 2010 RC, W7 x64, started a new project type of Silverlight application. Hosting the Silverlight application in a ASP.NET Web Application Project. Silverlight Version 3.0.
Added a LinqToSQL Class, a WCF Service, a Winform Tester Application (Project in the Solution) and a few Classes (also as Projects in the Solution).

Yesterday, suddenly I got the &#39;The breakpoint will not currently be hit. No symbols have been loaded for this document.&#39; message to appear in the IDE, but it only affects the Web Appliaction, I can debug the Silverlight and the Winform App.
 
What I tried / did to get rid of the message:
 
- Reset Visual Studio Settings
- removed all files in every \Temporary ASP.NET Files Folder (there is one for each 32bit/64bit and for Framework 2.0 and 4.0)
- tried to debug using Visual Studio Integrated Web server - normally I use IIS, in the project output of the solution I deleted every obj and bin folders in every project folder
- created a new solution and added all the projects to this new solution
- deleted the solution suo file
- created a new ASP.NET Web Application to test if it is a VS-installation issue =&gt; I can debug this new project/solution
- rebooted the machine several times
- repaired the vs.net installation
- did an IISReset
- removed the Web App from IIS
- used the Create Virtual Directory Button under Project Properties of the Web App to create a new Web App in IIS
- changed the Framework Version of every project from 3.5 to 4.0
- Opened the Solution on my second machine =&gt; same behavior
- crawled Microsoft Connect for bugs / similar issues
- SPENT 7 HOURS. 

So, this happens the 2nd time in my life. last time I solved it by deleting Temporary ASP.NET Files Folder, but this time I need your help.

The breakpoint will not currently be hit. No symbols have been loaded for this document in a Silverlight application

I have some class that I&#39;m passing as a result of a service method, and that class has a get-only property:

    [DataContract]
    public class ErrorBase
    {
      [DataMember]
      public virtual string Message { get { return &quot;&quot;; } }
    }

I&#39;m getting an exception on service side:

&gt; System.Runtime.Serialization.InvalidDataContractException:  No set
&gt; method for property &#39;Message&#39; in type &#39;MyNamespace.ErrorBase&#39;.

I have to have this property as only getter, I can&#39;t allow users to assign it a value. Any workaround I could use? Or am I missing some additional attribute?



WCF chokes on properties with no &quot;set &quot;. Any workaround?

I recently created a WCF service (dll) and a service host (exe). I know my WCF service is working correctly since I am able to successfully add the service to WcfTestClient. 

However, I seem to be running into an issue when I comes to utlizing my WCF from a service host (exe). I can add a reference to the WCF (dll) to my service host (exe) and create the necessary componets to the exe; such as the service installer, service host, and the app.config, compile and then finally install the exe using InstallUtil. But, when I tried to start the service in the Microsoft Management Console, the service immediately stops after being started. 

So I began investigating what could exactly be causing this issue an came up with this error from the Application Log in the Event Viewer. 

Description: 

&gt; Service cannot be started.
&gt; System.InvalidOperationException:
&gt; Service &#39;Service&#39; has zero application
&gt; (non-infrastructure) endpoints. This
&gt; might be because no configuration file
&gt; was found for your application, or
&gt; because no service element matching
&gt; the service name could be found in the
&gt; configuration file, or because no
&gt; endpoints were defined in the service
&gt; element.

This error is actually generated in the `OnStart`; of my exe, when I perform this call `ServiceHost.Open()`. I&#39;ve seen numerous posts where other individuals have run into this issue, however most if not all of them, claim that the service name or contract; namespace and class name, are not being specified. I checked both of these entries in my config file; in the exe as well as in the dll, and they match up PERFECTLY. I&#39;ve had other people in the office double check behind me to make sure I wasn&#39;t going blind at one point, but of course they came to the same conclusion as me that everything looked like it was specified correctly. I am truly at a lost as to what is going on at this point.  Could anyone help me with this issue? 

Another thing that came up as a possible reason this may be happening is that the app.config is never being read; at least not the one I think should be getting read. Could this be the issue? If so, how can I go about addressing this issue. Again, ANY help would be appreciated. 



Service has zero application (non-infrastructure) endpoints

I am trying to make a WCF service over basicHttpBinding to be used over https. Here&#39;s my web.config:

    &lt;!-- language: xml --&gt;
    &lt;service behaviorConfiguration=&quot;MyServices.PingResultServiceBehavior&quot;
             name=&quot;MyServices.PingResultService&quot;&gt;
        &lt;endpoint address=&quot;&quot; 
                  binding=&quot;basicHttpBinding&quot; 
                  bindingConfiguration=&quot;defaultBasicHttpBinding&quot;
                  contract=&quot;MyServices.IPingResultService&quot;&gt;
            &lt;identity&gt;
                &lt;dns value=&quot;localhost&quot; /&gt;
            &lt;/identity&gt;
        &lt;/endpoint&gt;
        &lt;endpoint address=&quot;mex&quot; 
                  binding=&quot;mexHttpBinding&quot; 
                  contract=&quot;IMetadataExchange&quot; /&gt;
    &lt;/service&gt;
    ...

&lt;!-- language: xml --&gt;

    &lt;bindings&gt;
      &lt;basicHttpBinding&gt;
        &lt;binding name=&quot;defaultBasicHttpBinding&quot;&gt;
          &lt;security mode=&quot;Transport&quot;&gt;
            &lt;transport clientCredentialType=&quot;None&quot;/&gt;
          &lt;/security&gt;
        &lt;/binding&gt;
      &lt;/basicHttpBinding&gt;
    &lt;/bindings&gt;
    ...
    &lt;behaviors&gt;
      &lt;serviceBehaviors&gt;
        &lt;behavior name=&quot;MyServices.UpdateServiceBehavior&quot;&gt;
          &lt;serviceMetadata httpsGetEnabled=&quot;true&quot; /&gt;
          &lt;serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults=&quot;true&quot; /&gt;
        &lt;/behavior&gt;
      &lt;/serviceBehaviors&gt;
    &lt;/behaviors&gt;


I am connecting using WCFStorm which is able to retrieve all the meta data properly, but when I call the actual method I get:

&gt; The provided URI scheme &#39;https&#39; is invalid; expected &#39;http&#39;. Parameter
&gt; name: via

Content Type	Original Author	Original Content on Stackoverflow
Question	Craig Schwarze	View Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Wcf	Otávio Décio	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Wcf	rosencreuz	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - Wcf	skyfrog	View Answer on Stackoverflow

What is "mexHttpBinding"?

Wcf Problem Overview

Wcf Solutions

Solution 1 - Wcf

Solution 2 - Wcf

Solution 3 - Wcf

What are the advantages of just-in-time compilation versus ahead-of-time compilation?

How to check a input IP fall in a specific IP range

Attributions