You can expose the service in two different endpoints.
the SOAP one can use the binding that support SOAP e.g. basicHttpBinding, the RESTful one can use the webHttpBinding. I assume your REST service will be in JSON, in that case, you need to configure the two endpoints with the following behaviour configuration
<endpointBehaviors>
<behavior name="jsonBehavior">
<enableWebScript/>
</behavior>
</endpointBehaviors>
An example of endpoint configuration in your scenario is
<services>
<service name="TestService">
<endpoint address="soap" binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="ITestService"/>
<endpoint address="json" binding="webHttpBinding" behaviorConfiguration="jsonBehavior" contract="ITestService"/>
</service>
</services>
so, the service will be available at
Apply [WebGet] to the operation contract to make it RESTful.
e.g.
public interface ITestService
{
[OperationContract]
[WebGet]
string HelloWorld(string text)
}
Note, if the REST service is not in JSON, parameters of the operations can not contain complex type.
Reply to the post for SOAP and RESTful POX(XML)
For plain old XML as return format, this is an example that would work both for SOAP and XML.
[ServiceContract(Namespace = "http://test")]
public interface ITestService
{
[OperationContract]
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "accounts/{id}")]
Account[] GetAccount(string id);
}
POX behavior for REST Plain Old XML
<behavior name="poxBehavior">
<webHttp/>
</behavior>
Endpoints
<services>
<service name="TestService">
<endpoint address="soap" binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="ITestService"/>
<endpoint address="xml" binding="webHttpBinding" behaviorConfiguration="poxBehavior" contract="ITestService"/>
</service>
</services>
Service will be available at
REST request
try it in browser,
http://www.example.com/xml/accounts/A123
SOAP request
client endpoint configuration for SOAP service after adding the service reference,
<client>
<endpoint address="http://www.example.com/soap" binding="basicHttpBinding"
contract="ITestService" name="BasicHttpBinding_ITestService" />
</client>
in C#
TestServiceClient client = new TestServiceClient();
client.GetAccount("A123");
Another way of doing it is to expose two different service contract and each one with specific configuration. This may generate some duplicates at code level, however at the end of the day, you want to make it working.
This answer is based on an article that no longer exists:
Summary of article:
"Basically, WCF is a service layer that allows you to build applications that can communicate using a variety of communication mechanisms. With it, you can communicate using Peer to Peer, Named Pipes, Web Services and so on.
You can’t compare them because WCF is a framework for building interoperable applications. If you like, you can think of it as a SOA enabler. What does this mean?
Well, WCF conforms to something known as ABC, where A is the address of the service that you want to communicate with, B stands for the binding and C stands for the contract. This is important because it is possible to change the binding without necessarily changing the code. The contract is much more powerful because it forces the separation of the contract from the implementation. This means that the contract is defined in an interface, and there is a concrete implementation which is bound to by the consumer using the same idea of the contract. The datamodel is abstracted out."
... later ...
"should use WCF when we need to communicate with other communication technologies (e,.g. Peer to Peer, Named Pipes) rather than Web Service"
Best Solution
I originally used names like ServiceNameProxy and ServiceNameSvcProxy. But, like you, I haven't been particularly satisfied with those names, and as a result I did not stick with them. Now I just resort to ServiceNameService or ServiceNameSvc.
Is the key thing you want to communicate to users of the class that the class is a proxy? The distinction you are making - between a proxy class and a concrete class - seems like applies and alligators. The opposite of concrete is abstract, no? And the proxy class generated by svcutil.exe is, in fact, concrete.
With a naming convention, I think you are trying to indicate that the proxy class communicates to a remote service. (When we call it a "proxy", we mean to indicate it stands in front of something, in this case the remote service. ) If that is the case, then why not ServiceNameService or ServiceNameConnection, or along similar lines? Like System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection or System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.
My own chosen naming convention is in line with that. It indicates that the class represents a service, which is assumed to be remote. I don't care so much to accentuate the fact that it is a proxy-to-a-service. For practical purposes the fact that it is a Service is the key thing.