I working on a Saas application that will be using ASP.NET MVC 4 & SQL Server. I am planning to have a data layer (using EF5), a service layer (possible only have RESTful services), a DTO layer, and Web UI layer. Later on, I am planning to extend this application to mobile platform, for both Android & iPhone ... maybe windows tablet.
Usually, one would create a separate layer for domain objects where business rules are contained. However, in my case, if I did that, then I would have to replicate the rules again for android ... and yet again for iphone. So, I was thinking to have the business rules within the service layer itself. However, for whatever reason that doesn't feel right.
Any suggestions on this?
The presentation layer must be what it is.. just a presentation layer. Your business rules should not be there.
I understand that your DTO's will be the objects that will feed your clients (android, iphone, web,etc..), so there's no need to transfer your business objects to the UI. Keep your business layer isolated in the server side and make your clients work with it just to get the data they need to show.
My suggestion is to make the presentation layer agnostic of the business rules. Using this approach will make your solution scalable and easy to extend. Is a good way to apply separation of concerns.
Saying that.. You might be worried about how to share your DTO's across different platforms. I think the best approach would be to not feed your presentation layer with .NET objects since you are planning to use different programming languages and technologies in your presentation layer. JSON and REST could play very well for your problem.
I suggest to use Asp.net Web Api to work with json objects. Objective-c, Java and Javascript (for your Web UI) can work with this kind of objects.
You said that you have a service layer. The business logic should be behind it.
Business layer -> (shared business objects) -> service layer -> (shared DTOs) -> presentation layers
Where the presentation layers are MVC4, Android, IPhone etc. They can all share the same DTOs but serialized differently.
From a performance perspective, duplicating the rules for each platform is the way to go (because it separates the processing between different devices) however from a maintenance, consistency, etc. perspective you should place the business rules in a workflow that is within / parallel to the service layer.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee658103.aspx
Related
I think these are conceptual questions, but for example, can we have a monolithic application that renders the pages and assembles the views (back and front together) or a monolith that is an api for a frontend application? And in the case of microservices, we can have microservices that render the pages or will always be APIs for consumption by a frontend application (or any other)?
Maybe!
Microservices usually means dividing your system into business contexts as opposed to software implementations.
So if the business context is, for example, the user experience, it makes sense that you put all of it in one place. User experience is mostly implemented in a webclient or mobile app layer, but can be heavily affected by a backend layer that serves those clients. In this case, bundling them together within the same code base and deployment cadence makes a lot of sense.
This "experience" microservice should have clear boundaries, though. Persisting things in a database is not part of the experience as a simple example.
When developing an app with GUI, and database access, are there situations where the MVC architecture isn't relevant?
To me it seems that the Views and Controllers must only be different entities is one to upgrade the views, or to replace them with something else, namely mobile displays (or predicts such a possible change for the future of the app).
Also, I see the separation of the Model and Controllers only necessary if the Model is to be upgraded / replaced.
So is there any other purpose for the MVC architecture that the situations when components should be upgraded/ changed, or is this really it?
I like MVC because it makes it easier to think about how different parts of the app are going to work together. If everything is just lumped in together, I find it much harder to visualise in my head.
So it's not really a case of when you should use it, rather how do you prefer to think?
If you find it easier not using MVC then you should probably not use MVC.
I think, the root of you confusion is the scope at which you try to apply MVC design pattern.
MVC is not a pattern for small applications. Instead you are supposed to apply it, when your free-form OOP code starts to become unmanageable. Your codebase might be implementing all of the SOLID principles, but at some point you will start getting lost there.
That would be when you should be using MVC, because this design pattern applies additional constraints. It does not add anything new to application. Instead it limits what code can go in what parts of your application.
P.S. you also seem mistaken about what separation there is in MVC. The basic divide is between model layers and presentation layers. Those are two main parts MVC applications. And only then withing the presentation layer there is a separation between views and controllers. You might benefit from reading this article.
For me, it all comes down to testability. Automated testing of UI code is exorbitantly expensive compared to testing of model code. It is much easier to achieve test coverage in model and event controller layers compared to view layers.
If you have no need to test your application, and it is small enough that you can keep it all straight in your head, then MVC is probably a waste of time. Very few applications are truly small enough that these concerns are not at issue. But if the app is truly that small, MVC will add far more overhead than it will provide in value.
Don't think of MVC design pattern as you business architecture. Treat MVC as presentation architecture. There are many arguments about MVC usage in terms of business architecture. This stackoverflow question is one example.
Actually, you are looking for N-Tier architecture. Where it is separated as DAL, BLL and PL:
Data Access Layer (DAL):
A layer responsible to inteact with the Storage (insert/update/delete)
BLL:
A layer where the business logic resides. This layer is the core of your application. Some people often use the term Middleware (please correct me if wrong) to represent the BLL. BLL does not know the UI, means that it can be used by Desktop app, web app, mobile app, etc.
PL:
This is your presentation layer or UI layer. MVC, at least the View and Controller resides here.
There are benefits to the MVC architecture, and there are some disadvantages to it. You have to weigh them for your project to see which would be the most appropriate for you.
Advantages for MVC:
More maintainable because it's compartmentalized (separation of
concerns).
It's more testable because you can unit test the controllers.
You typically have more control over the HTML that gets generated
(Yes, you can accomplish the same with webforms, but only if you give
up all of the advantages of webforms as well).
Your webpages will be smaller and faster because you won't be
carrying around page/view/control state.
Integrates better with client-side lifestyle and libraries
(Bootstrap, jQuery and it's many plug-ins, AJAX, etc)
Advantages of webforms:
More 3rd party controls (webforms relies heavily on either 3rd party controls, or custom usercontrols to achieve rapid application development).
If you need viewstate, then it takes less work, but this is pretty
rare if designed right.
Integrates better with server side control libraries.
Of course, someone is going to say, why did you list xyz as an advantage for whatever, because you can do that in the other one too! Well, you can achieve the same thing in both frameworks, it's just a matter of ease. What is easy for one may be more difficult in the other, but both of them, given enough time and resources can do it too.
MVC is about separation of concerns and making these concerns testable.
Someone said 'MVC is not a pattern for small applications.'. I disagree. Why? It only dictates how you separate concerns, I don't understand why this should be different for small applications. I would argue it's even simpler because every developer uses the same pattern and is used to it. It's not overhead, it's consistency. Also look what this guy has to say.
Another thing: MVC is a presentation layer pattern (Separated Presentation), it means it logically separates your UI in a models, views and controllers. Controllers are responsible for managing the flow, interacting with the backend system to query and save data, and converting that data to models (or view models) that are used by the views.
The backend in itself is another system, which has its own independent architecture, with services, domain and data layer (as for example the onion architecture, of which an example can be found here).
I've been using MVC for a long time and heard about the "Service" layer (for example in Java web project) and I've been wondering if that is a real architectural pattern given I can't find a lot of information about it.
The idea of MVCS is to have a Service layer between the controller and the model, to encapsulate all the business logic that could be in the controller. That way, the controllers are just there to forward and control the execution. And you can call a Service in many controllers (for example, a website and a webservice), without duplicating code.
The service layer can be interpreted a lot of ways, but it's usually where you have your core business processing logic, and sits below your MVC architecture, but above your data access architecture.
For example, you layer of a complete system may look like this:
View Layer: Your MVC framework & code of choice
Service Layer: Your Controller will call this layer's objects to get or update Models, or other requests.
Data Access Objects: These are abstractions that your service layer will call to get/update the data it needs. This layer will generally either call a Database or some other system (eg: LDAP server, web service, or NoSql-type DB)
The service layer would then be responsible for:
Retrieving and creating your 'Model' from various data sources (or data access objects).
Updating values across various repositories/resources.
Performing application-specific logic and manipulations, etc.
The Model you use in your MVC may or may not come from your services. You may want to take the results your service gives you and manipulate them into a model that's more specific to your medium (eg: a web page).
I had been thinking of this pattern myself without seeing any reference to this any where else and searched Google and found your Question here :)
Even today there is not much any body talking about or posting about the
View-Controller Service Pattern.
Thought to let you know other are thinking the same and the image above is how I view how it should be.
Currently I am using it in a project I am working on now.
I have it in Modules with each layers in the image above with in it's own self contained Module.
The Services layer is the "connector" "middleman" "server side Controller" in that what the "client" side Controller does for the client, the "Service" does for the server.
In other words the Client side "Controller" only "talks" with the "Service" aka Server Side Controller.
Controller ---> Requests and Receive from the <----- Service Layer
The Service layer fetches or give information to the layers on the server side that needs it.
By itself the Service does not do anything but connect the server layers with what they need.
Here is a code sample:
I have been using the MVCS pattern for years and I didn't know anyone else did as I couldn't find any solid info on the web. I started using it instinctively if you like and it's never let me down for Laravel projects. I'd say it's a very maintainable solution to mid sized projects, especially when working in an agile environment where business logic changes on the constant. Having that separation of concern is very handy.
Saying this, I found the service layer to be unnecessary for small projects or prototypes and what not. I've made the mistake of over complicating the project when making prototypes and it just ultimately means it takes longer to get your idea out. If you're serious about maintaining the project in the mid term then MVCS is a perfect solution IMO.
Suppose the business layer is consumed by web and some of the business layer's functionality is open to public also as REST web services.
Would you do input validation for business logic at presentation layer (web or REST web service) or in business layer and capture the validation errors (thrown by business layer) at presentation layer?
(Specifically spring framework is in use)
When in doubt, it is generally better to put business logic (incl input validation logic) in the business layer because
You may be dealing with multiple presentation mediums (e.g., web GUI and API)
You don't want to repeat code and manage two instances of that logic
Good frameworks will allow you to define such logic in a common place and support catching issues early (e.g., in the presentation layer), which is usually a more intuitive (fail fast), more scalable (front end catches it) solution.
However, if your framework(s) do not support this capability, you should prefer consistency and maintainability and put the logic in the business layer.
I reccomend implementing validation in all layters. I do the UI so the user experience is high, with immediate feedback. But I never trust the data provided by the UI (think a user who disables JS). Now how detailed your server-side validation goes is up to you. But you want to avoid having your user have to suffer through a full round trip to the server if you can.
Violations of business rules should always happen in the business layer. Whether you allow for proactive checking or not is a design decision, as is whether you want to do eager checking on the client to avoid round-trips.
I am sorry for my question may looking a old repetitive questions but I as I am starting Linq to SQL I want to discuss how many layers (architecture) should I use ?
I am working on web mostly web sites and small to medium scale web applications. I understand dividing application into layers help its maintainanace and enhancement but frankly I want some balance way which give me rapid development and code reuse-ability as well. I cannot spare so much time on unwanted management of layers.
Before I was using 4 layers (business objects, BLL,DAL and user itnerface.) I became confuse on it as different people have described different layers. Please guide me what and how many layers I should use ? Thanks
Don't use the layer architecture. Use the onion architecture.
The most important aspect from architecture perspective is the separation of concerns. Separation of concerns leads to clean code, easy maintenance, extensible, etc. That said, I recommend to base your decisions based on the following criteria:
Try to architect your system in a loosely coupled way. Use messaging instead of RPC as messaging is reliable, scalable, asychronous, loosely coupled, etc. You can either use MSMQ or NServiceBus (for service bus based architecture).
Create layers based on the separation of concerns concept. For e.g. you can go for typical 3 layered architecture which will have just UI layer, business logic layer (business rules+workflow) and data access layer or more granular such as UI layer, services layer (facade), business logic layer, data access layer, etc. Using IoC / Dependency injection will make life easy as none of the layers will have direct dependency. Moreover, it promotes unit testing easy as you inject mocks instead of the real implementations for the unit test. There are so many IoC frameworks available (NInject, Autofac, Castle Windsor, Structure Map, etc...)
Try to use EF instead of Linq to SQL as the later works only with SQL, while the EF works with any database. Moreover, in my opinion, EF is where microsoft is innovating and I would assume that Linq to SQL may be retired one day.
Great question haansi. This is something that I have wrestled with quite often when building small to medium sized sites. Finding that balance of creating a architecture that gives you the greatest flexibility and allows for rapid deployment is what I think we all need to strive for in all of our work.
With that being said, I have found that using the Repository Pattern to be quite helpful with LINQ to SQL projects. I couple that with the Model View Presenter pattern (for WebForms or other projects) and it provides a great foundation for reuse with minimal layers.
My Webform calls a Presenter class, which in turn is responsible for populating the View. To populate that View the Presenter can call N number of Repositories. The Repository is where you encapsulate your DataContext class and your LINQ to SQL calls. These calls return the model classes.
One huge benefit to this regardless of the size of the app is that get great re-use out of your Repository, you get to maximize the use of LINQ and you have used some patterns that other software developers could easily read and support.
Another big benefit is that you now have created a simple architecture that can benefit from using Unit Testing to test from the Presenter back to the Repository without a ton of effort.
Good luck!
I decided to use one layer (DAL + BLL) for small projects and for large applications will use Different layers for DAL & BLL. I will use Linq in DAL and funtiosn will return IQueryable.