I am in the process of learning about microservices and there's one thing that I can't seem to figure out and I can't find any resources that give me a direct answer to this. The question is:
Do microservices involve only business logic and database interactions
or do they involve UI components like JS, CSS, HTML as well ?
There really isn't a notion of what tiers are included in a microservice itself, however generally speaking, when referring to microservices most of the time you're referring to some back end based app. That begin said - there are companies out there - two that I've talked to directly that are building "microapps" - basically the backend service, facade and a portlet like interface that can be plugged into a federated portal through a layer of orchestration.
For the Java folks - think fully encapsulated JSR-268 like components that are run as independent processes running within a portal itself.
A microservice can be a complete application including its own UI, business logic and data.
I have been working on a mobile app that sends an ajax call to the server and waits for a response from the server in json format.
I am wondering from the server side, how to respond to an ajax call? Could someone give me an example in code?
I check the server code of my project (written by other members of the team) and could not understand it. I can only see it is written in java and also some keywords such as apache, springframework, etc pop up. I am a total newbie for server side programming and I want to learn more about it. Could someone give me some tips on how to get started with those as well? How does a server work? Is it just like responding to various request? What language could you use to build it and what is Apache? I know this looks like a lot of questions so probably I need to get some basic knowledge first. Any help/tips/suggestions on readings is appreciated.
This is kind of a broad question, as there are a lot of different server-side technologies that can handle server side AJAX requests, but if you want to go the Java route, using Spring Framework makes it very easy.
Spring Framework is a large open-source Enterprise Java framework that has a variety of features which entire books rarely even cover.
(Apache is an open-source project that contains over a hundred different sub-projects, the most popular being a web server.)
Spring does have some specific tools to handle REST calls. Assuming your AJAX is making a REST call (which is what it sounds like), and your project is already using Spring framework, it is fairly straightforward (assuming you already know Java). The Spring framework handles all the hard stuff for you. There are a few different ways to do this using Spring, but check out this link for creating a simple REST service:
https://spring.io/guides/gs/rest-service/
Another route would be to look into PHP, which is a server-side scripting language. With PHP, you can handle AJAX requests without the need for an application server (most basic web servers speak PHP). There are plenty of good resources for this, but one of my favorites is http://www.tutorialspoint.com/php/
BTW - the TutorialsPoint site is great for Java and Spring as well
I need to send an information to a user via a web-api only once by session, and I used to do in asmx by storing a variable in the session.
As in web-api I can't use sessions, how can I do this ?
Started as a comment, but ended up being too long...
ASP.NET Web API is mainly used to create HTTP services and, as Microsoft claim, ASP.NET Web API is an ideal platform for building RESTful applications on the .NET Framework. Such services are meant to be stateless so what you're trying to do is technically going against a pretty fundamental design goal. Having said that, things are not as clear-cut as they seem and there's some (almost religious) debate over whether a REST service should be stateless or allow state in some degree.
The following SO questions might give you some help and/or direction about achieving what you want:
ASP.NET Web API session or something?
If REST applications are supposed to be stateless, how do you manage sessions?
How to manage state in REST
Also, the following StrathWeb article gives some additional advice (with a code example) and links to other sources of information:
http://www.strathweb.com/2012/11/adding-session-support-to-asp-net-web-api/
In a project I'm currently working on, I'm having to store some state information for token-based user authentication and, since I have access to a database, I use a table to store the information I need. Technically speaking, and certainly for some people, I'm breaking the rules. But it works for me and, at the end of the day, you have a job to do and you may not always have the time to do things 100% correctly, so you have to be pragmatic in your approach.
There are number of REST frameworks around for ASP.NET MVC. Which one is the most mature in your opinion? Following are few I briefly looked at, but I couldn't decide.
Snooze
BistroMVC
Restful Service with WCF
OpenRasta
Siesta
REST support build in ASP.Net MVC SDK
.... there are few more.
Personally I would go with the default ASP.NET routing engine which is built and supported by Microsoft. This will ensure that you won't find yourself one day into the position of having to migrate some code which has become obsolete because the authors simply decided to abandon the project. Of course if there is something specific that you want to implement which isn't supported out of the box you could search for alternatives. But as far as exposing a RESTful API is concerned the routing engine should work just fine.
I completely agree with Darin.
But if you're looking for something closer to what WCF offers (Web service, versus a typical Web site), I've been extremely happy with WCF REST.
There's a WCF REST Service Template available via Visual Studio's Extension Manager that will get you up and running fairly quickly.
OpenRasta
Have been implementing RESTFul service using OR, only one word to describe it => "Pure Awesomeness" ....actually it's 2 words.
For me the simplicity is a plus, the framework is easy to use and adopt to. Some of it's conventions in my opinion really help me to understand Resful. Many integration points in the framework, very easy to extend its functionalists.
watching video recordings of seb's talk is very entertaining as well :) very opinionated (in a good way IMO)
I agree with Darin. Personally, I think Apache Thrift is also an option for doing client and server communication.
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".