Is there a reason that the Silverlight Ready WCF does not have an Interface for the ServiceContract class built automatically like the normal WCF Services do? I understand there isn't a need necessarily for it, but I am just curious why one would have it and the other does not.
+1
A:
Other than a badly created template not really. I'm assuming it's because they wanted to make creating these services quicker (looks good in demos).
Realistically the only thing in the template that makes it "Silverlight Ready" is the web.config entries (basicHttpBinding, aspnet requirements).
Your best bet for "proper" WCF services to create ones as you normally do and just make a note of the configuration the template uses.
Nigel Sampson
2009-08-03 01:54:26
A:
Nigel is very close here. We wanted to make the template as easy as possible for developers who have no WCF experience. Avoiding the interface was one step, you'll also notice the ability to use POCO types (thus avoiding [DataConract]) is another step in that direction.
Yavor Georgiev - MSFT
2009-09-28 07:11:38