what is the difference between 3 tier architecture and a mvc ?
Are they same?
Both have 3 layers i.e model, views and controller
Comparison with the MVC architecture
At first glance, the three tiers may seem similar to the
model-view-controller (MVC) concept; however, topologically they are
different. A fundamental rule in a three tier architecture is the
client tier never communicates directly with the data tier; in a
three-tier model all communication must pass through the middle tier.
Conceptually the three-tier architecture is linear. However, the
[model-view-controller] MVC architecture is triangular: the view sends
updates to the controller, the controller updates the model, and the
view gets updated directly from the model.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitier_architecture#Three-tier_architecture
MVC is a pattern used to make UI code easier to maintain and test. When the MVC pattern is used a larger portion of the UI code can be unit tested.
Here is a good article which describes the MVC pattern in more detail: http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/uiArchs.html
3 tier architecture is a pattern used for a completely different reason. It separates the entire application into meaningful "groups": UI, Business Logic, Data Storage.
So 3 tier application refers to all code in the application. The MVC pattern is a pattern used in the UI tier.
Here is a good article on the 3 tier architecture: http://dotnetslackers.com/articles/net/IntroductionTo3TierArchitecture.aspx
For further information you can search the internet and find a gazzilion articles on both subjects.
Their are similar in a way, like:
3 tier divides the whole app in: UI, logic and data
MVC divides the UI part in: view (kind of UI of the UI), model (data) and controller (logic)
But the difference comes from how the tiers communicate with each other:
3-tier: anything goes through the logic tier (a->b, b->c and c->b, b->a)
MVC: they communicate 2 by 2, in a triangular way. (a->b, b->c, c->a)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitier_architecture
Briefly, in 3-tier architecture, presentation tier never communicates directly with data tier. In MVC, the relation among model, view, and controller is triangular. Two of three can communicate each other
In three tier solution the UI is separated from the business tier to make sure that the UI designer who is concerned with the look and feel is not confused with the heavy programming which is left to the programming professions.
This architecture (three tier) is essential when a large number of people are involved in producing a large application.
The main difference between both is:
A “tier” in this case can also be referred to as a “layer”. The three tiers, or layers, involved include:
A Presentation Layer that sends content to browsers in the form of HTML/JS/CSS. This might leverage frameworks like React, Angular, Ember, Aurora, etc.
An Application Layer that uses an application server and processes the business logic for the application. This might be written in C#, Java, C++, Python, Ruby, etc.
A Data Layer which is a database management system that provides access to application data. This could be MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, or PostgreSQL, Mongo, etc.
MVC architecture is triangular: the view sends updates to the controller, the controller updates the model, and the view gets updated directly from the model
first of all, tier is for physical deployment, what you mean maybe layers, and MVC is a framework for the presentation layer, that's all
I recommend you try building a web app with some technologies that use MVC and three tiers to really understand the differences between them, I suggest you use ruby on rails with a templating engine since rails is one of the most known MVC frameworks
Related
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'm an ASP.NET MVC developer who decided to learn Ruby and Ruby on Rails. I already know something and created a web site on RoR. Developing on ASP.NET MVC, I have always used a three-tier architecture: data layer, business layer and UI (or presentation) layer.
Trying to use this approach in a Ruby on Rails application, I found that there was no information about it (or maybe I just couldn't find it?).
Perhaps someone can suggest me how to create or use three-tier architecture on Ruby on Rails?
P.S. I use ruby 1.9.3 and Ruby on Rails 3.2.3.
I would suggest following Ruby on Rails (RoR) style while making RoR applications. Rails way of seeing MVC architecture does not quite fit into Asp.net 3 Tier architecture.
UI (Presentation Layer | View)
These two follow the same logic. No major differences.
Controller (Business Layer | Controller)
Both Business Layer and Controller receive requests from UI and they send back responses. In Asp.net Business Layer takes care of validation and business logic. But in Rails, validations and business logic belong to Model.
Model (Data Layer | Model)
Rails' Model does more than Asp.net's Data Layer. Model deals with business logic and validations. Data Layer and Model take care of data transfer to storage.
When moving from Asp.net to RoR, try to keep your controllers thin. RoR sets serious constraints on how you structure your web application. And once you'll stick with those, you'll make more professional RoR apps.
Ruby on Rails is a three tier (MVC) architecure. In rails the data layer is the called the Model, the buisness layer is called the Controller, and the user interface layer is called Views.
Here are a couple good places to start:
rails guides,
rails tutorial for rails 3.2
After 4+ years, this is still a relevant question. It appears there's a confusion around what people mean by application tiers.
Previous answers are of course correct when you think of MVC tiers, and when you define an application as being 3-tier if it has proper models, views and controllers. Of course Rails is by default 3-tier in this sense, with notable differences to ASP.NET MVC as pointed out by others.
However, I have a feeling that the original question referred to how things are deployed (I may of course be wrong, but people looking at this question may still be looking for this). Enterprise applications often have the requirement to be three tier in a sense that a web application (presentation) can only talk to services (business logic), which can only talk to a database due to network level restrictions, and for security reasons.
In this model, the front-end web application performs security functions (protection against several types of attacks like CSRF or Clickjacking, maybe session management, etc.), and presents any data read from services on application servers. These application servers are not directly accessible by endusers, often trust web servers (or not, depending on the security model), and persist their data in databases, which cannot be accessed directly by web servers. In a Windows environment, web, app and database servers are typically in different domains.
Rails, as described in pretty much all tutorials, is a web and app server at the same time, which does not fit the latter model, and there really are not much resources available on how to do this properly. However, especially with Rails 5, it is very easy to turn Rails into a proper service to be used as an application server with an API (see the API-only Applications Guide), and it is also possible to create another Rails application for the web (presentation) tier. You will have to solve quite a lot of things for yourself though, from authentication between web and app to making service queries from web to app, especially now that ActiveResource is kind of retired.
MVC sets up clear distinction between Model, View and Controller.
For the model, now adays, web frameworks provides ability to map the model directly to database entities (ORM), which, IMHO, end up causing performance issues at runtime due to direct database I/O.
The thing is, if that's really the case, why model ORM is so pupular and every web frameworks want to support it either organically or not.
To a web site has huge amount of traffic, it definitely won't work. But what's the work around? Connect directly to database is definitely not a wise solution here.
What's your question?
Is it a good idea to use direct db access from webpages?
A: No.
Is it a good idea to use ORM's?
A: Debatable : See How can I design a Java web application without an ORM and without embedded SQL
Is it a good idea to use MVC model?
A: Yes - it has nothing to do with "Direct" database access - it's about separating your application logic from your model and your display. (Put simply).
And the rationale for not putting database logic inside webpages has nothing to do with performance - it's about security/maintainability etc etc. Calling a usp from a webpage is likely to be MORE performant than using an ORM, but it's bad because the performance gain is negligible, and the cons are significant.
As to workaround: if you mean how do you hook up a database to a web application...?
The simplest way is to use something like Entity Frameworks or Linq-Sql with your Model - there are plenty of examples of this in tutorials on the web.
A better method IMO, is to have a separate Services layer (which may be WCF based), and have all the database access inside that, with DTO's transferring the data to your Web Application which has it's own ViewModel.
Mvc is not about orm but about separation of display logics and business logics. There is no reason your exposed model needs to be identical to you database model and many reasons to ensure that the exposed model closely matches what is to be displayed.
The other part of the solution to scale well would be to implement caching in the control and be able to distribute load on sevaral instances.
I think #BonyT has given a good answer, (and I've voted for it :) ), I'd just add that:
"web frameworks provide the ability to map the model directly to database entities (ORM), which, IMHO, ends up causing performance issues at runtime due to direct database I/O"
Even if this is true, using an ORM can solve a lot of problems with a model being easy to update and translate back and forth between a database. Solving a performance hit by buying extra web servers or cloud instances is much cheaper than having to buy extra developers or extra hours in development to solve things other people have already written ORMs to do for you.
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.
In the past I have primarily built all my web applications using an N-tier architecture, implementing the BLL and DAL layers. Recently, I have started doing some RoR development as well as looking into ASP.NET MVC.
I understand the differences between the different architectures(as referenced by some other SO posts), but I can't really think of any reasons why I wouldn't choose an MVC model going forward for a new project.
Is there any reasons/times in your experience when an MVC architecture would not be suitable, or any reasons why you would choose a BLL/DAL architecture instead?
I don't think your options are mutually exclusive. You could perfectly use MVC while using BLL/DAL for your model logic.
You can implement the M part of MVC as you prefer, there is no restriction about that. Using BLL and DAL would be a valid option.
For me? the only reason I'd not use MVC is because the application I'm working on was already started in web forms. I'm not a big proponent of scrap/rewrite, but anything new I do is in MVC.
One of the factors could be the statefulness of your web application. If it's a basic web application that gets everything from the server with a few JavaScript hooks such as client side validations, then the Rails type MVC is really great. I am not familiar with MVC on ASP.NET, but I've heard it's similar to that in Rails.
If the web application is really stateful, then a better approach would be to have a dual MVC layer - one on the client side, and the other for the server. The MVC on the server will mostly concern itself with authentication, authorization, churning out data in standard formats, etc. The client side MVC will concern itself with things such as DOM events, user actions, how they affect the application state, and how/when should data be requested/sent to the server.
MVC is just a way to organize code, just as BLL or DAL would do. MVC in Rails basically hides DAL altogether by using a set of conventions. Usually business logic resides in the models itself. However, if your application demands more complex BLL where object interactions can be intricate, then there's no reason why that BLL can't peacefully co-exist with the M in MVC.
I don't use MVC only on really tiny projects consisting of ~1-2 files and ~10-20 lines of code. And they will hardly evolve into something bigger.
But if they will, it will be time to rearchitect them into a MVC ones.
The only drawback we've had is that MVC pushes you toward a html/javascript interface where rich internet applications become more difficult. For example if you want to present the user with a calendar control, you may need to roll your own since you can't drop one on from the toolbox. That said, MVC is great. When we really need RIA applications we use MVVM and Silverlight.
For certain pages, MVC can be a little overkill:
splash pages
landing pages
marketing pages that are going to be thrown away after one use
one-off's
It's easy to get wrapped up creating a beautiful MVC architecture, when a small page, concisely written, can be OK on these situations.
MVC may also be impractical if you're in time trouble, and you need something out REALLY fast. Like your marketing team is out at a conference, they're having trouble, and needs something to show in their booth this second before they lose their biggest customer.
Life above the service tier suggests you should use the MVC pattern in a way that adheres to the SOFEA principles, and watch out for "Front controller" type frameworks disguising behind the MVC acronym.
(or, you can still use them, but at least read the article, understand the differences and choose wisely).
The simple answer is, no.
MVC is all around a better architecture than your old-school n-tier architecture, for many reasons. It's the standard approach in other UI models (e.g. Swing). The only reason it took so long to make it to web applications was because it took the software community, collectively, a little while to get used to the statelessness of the web and to be able to deal with the views and controllers in a way that made sense.
Personally, I would rate it based on the complexity of the target application. MVC (or more structured approaches in general) lend themselves very well to large scale applications where design consistency and segregation of code is a benefit outweighing the cost of supporting the design.
If its a small site, or very few pages/controls, I would avoid sticking to strict design patterns. But that is just my preference.
As one poster said, you also have to consider the state of any existing applications, and your development team skills / experience.
We have already use the MVC for the Windows application,Now we need to convert that thing in the Web application we don't have any problem in any thing. We are using the Web service and every Business Logic is in the Web service.
So you can use the MVC in the web application.
M-Model(Functions and Procedure which communicate with Business logic)
V-View(Design)
C-Controller(Form Logic)
so that is no connection in the DAL,BLL and in MVC.
you can define your Business logic and use in it any where in the MVC.
That's my point of view MVC is very useful for Re-usability i prefer if your application is big then you must use MVC.
I wouldn't use MVC pattern only in the case when I have an existing desktop application built with MVP and I have to convert it to a web environment. That's because I already have written logic for presenter.
In any other case I would use MVC.
You can refer to following
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webtopics/archive/2009/09/01/asp-net-mvc-what-is-it-and-should-i-use-it.aspx
and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd942833.aspx#id0080017 refer "Undisputable Facts".