Skip to main content

Building a simple Portable Class Library - Simple.Rest

I wanted to see how easy it was to build a Portable Class Library, and the answer is very easy. What follows is my experience.

First off create the project...
Next choose the platforms you want to support, you can changes these later via the project settings page:
At this point you're ready to start creating your masterpiece...

For this demo I thought I would revisit the WP7Contrib. Last year I built as part of the WP7Contrib a set of wrapper class around  HttpWebRequest & HttpWebResponse classes to make communicating with a RESTful web service easier - ResourceClient.

I was interested to see how this would turn out when implemented as a PCL. Also I was interested to see which framework features weren't supported for the selected target frameworks. I knew I wanted to use Task<T> for the asynchronous nature of my library's interface:

   1:  public interface IRestClient
   2:  {
   3:      Task<IRestResponse<T>> GetAsync<T>(Uri url) where T : class;
   5:      Task<IRestResponse> PutAsync<T>(Uri url, T resource) where T : class;
   7:      Task<IRestResponse<T>> PostAsync<T>(Uri url, T resource) where T : class;
   9:      Task<IRestResponse> DeleteAsync(Uri url);
  10:  }

This turned out to be the first issue as Task is not supported out of the box for any of the current WP7 platforms or Silverlight 4. This materialises as build errors:
Can I get round this or does this mean I'm going to have to reduce the number of targeted frameworks?

This seems to be the main problem when building a PCL - the lack of support for certain language\framework features and working out what is and isn't supported.

Initially I was going to use the AsyncBridge package, it has a PCL version, but it only supports Silverlight 5.0 not 4.0. But then yesterday I saw this blog post about Using async/await without .NET Framework 4.5 and this covered all the targets I needed...

Adding the Microsoft.Bcl.Async package along with the Json.Net package I was able to get a successful build. You'll notice in the screenshot below showing the referenced assemblies - out of the box a PCL only has the a reference to .NET Portable Subset:
Testing my PCL was very easy and simple - no need to test on different frameworks, just a standard test library in 4.5 with a reference to nUnit and I was away.

This ability for me is probably the greatest feature of building a PCL for the simple reason being I can now write tests for a platform that is relatively hard to test for (e.g. WP7)  in away that can be incorporated into an automated build process. I've used Project Linker to do this before but compared to this that was a hassle:
And after implementing the PCL completely I get all the tests to sucessfully pass:
That pretty much covers my experience of building a simple PCL...

I've pushed this code up onto GitHub here and I also pushed out a NuGet package called Simple.Rest


  1. Nice post, thank you for sharing. You have really imparted useful knowledge. A very useful post I must say. Awesome content. I bookmarked it for future reference.

  2. Thanks and keep posting such a informative blogs.
    DLF Chanakyapuri


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th