I'm used to creating the UI, BLL, DAL by hand (some times I've used LINQ-to-SQL or SubSonic for the DAL). I've done several small projects using MVC since its release.
On these projects I've still continued to write a BLL and DAL by hand and then incorporate those into the MVC's models/controllers. I'm looking to optimize my time on projects this seems like overkill and a potential waste of time.
Question
Would it be acceptable to roll a DAL such as SubSonic and directly use it in the Models/Controllers of my MVC web app? Now the models & controllers would act as the BLL. I just see this as a major timesaver to not have to worry about another tier.
UPDATE:
I just wanted to add that my concern isn't really with the DAL (I frequently use SubSonic and NH) but rather focus on the BLL. Sorry for the confusion.
MVC has no or little connection to the n-tier architecture. It belongs to the UI layer and serves to process interaction with the user. How you structure the rest of your application is... let's use the word orthogonal to you using MVC or not.
Business logic layer stays if you had it.
Data access layer stays if you had it.
Controllers should not be used to implement business logic. It's basically a routing layer to decide what action to invoke, what route to redirect to. A general recommendation is to keep it thin and have it take a decision on the basis of the route data and a few business logic calls.
Also models do not equal business objects. Models are a pack of data to be displayed by a view, likely to contain some auxiliary data not related to a business entity.
You can use an ORM and replace the data access layer with it. Depends on the ORM how you can integrate it. With EF you can use the entities directly as business objects.
There is not one perfect solution for how an application should be structured. You have to take into consideration the context and be pragmatic about it. For small applications architecture is far less important than for serious enterprise level applications. If you think your approach will save you a lot of time and will meet your needs now and in the future: go for it.
No, MVC does not replace a manually created UI, BLL, DAL.
You should not have had a manually created DAL for about - hm - 8 years or so. Lots of good or bad DAL generators are out since many many years. I had one complete ORM out around 2001. NHibernate is out for many many years now, too. THe world - even for .NET - does not end at MS offerings (which - all of them in this area, LINQ2SQL and EF) are still really low quality compared to the stuff others have out.
You still have to code business logic and UI in MVC - just in a different fashion than with classic ASP.NET. THe idea is not getting rid of them, it is about having them in a different orgianzation which is better for clean HTML as well as, for example, unit testing (which is really hard to do in classical ASP.NET).
Related
In my quest to understand MVP-VM design pattern in preparation for a new project which will be using DevExpress, I am unable to find an example with a database example.
Viewing DevExpress, I am unable to locate an example with this design pattern.
So, my question is this, does anyone who has experience of this design pattern, if you have experience of this with DevExpress even better, can give me an example of database connection, mapping data from a database (query/table) to model, and saving data to the database?
I appreciate this may sound rather an elementary question, but I do not know with this pattern what is the best practice for taking data from the view to persist to a database, and vice versa. Therefore, I do not wish to go off and doing incorrect.
Thanks
Classic architectures define the following parts:
DAL (Data Access Layer) : Deals with db operations, contains no business logic.
BLL (Business Logic Layer) : Deals with business logic and constraints, but no database operations.
PL (Presentation Layer) : Deals with presentation and user interaction.
MVP/MVVM deals with PL only. The big question is, what exactly is the M(odel) in this patterns. One example is using Entity Framework or DevExpress XPO to map objects to the database. But what are this objects? Are they the VMs? Are they the Model(s)? Or are they just simple Dtos of the Dal? If you look at the previous definitions, the last one will be the most matching one. But that means you have to map this dtos to you model objects (where the logic resides) and to you vms (where the databinding happens) or first to your model and in a second step from there to your vms? What about the filtering/sorting/paging capabilities of the datagrid, that only works if you give it direct access to you dal?
In my opinion true separation of the three aspects could only be achieved with CQRS or similiar architectures. At least I don't know of others. But this is only for extreme complex applications with lot of business logic and comes with much overhead and trade offs.
So, for your app, you have to decide which barriers you will break to suite your needs and to avoid needless complexity for your project. A simple CRUD application could use Entity Framework/XPO and use the objects directly as VMs for databinding. You have no bll at all. If it grows more complex you perhaps go a little bit in the direction of cqrs. You define views and use EF/XPO and their objects directly for databinding, but for complex operations you create a bll (domain)model with objects (that are loaded with EF/XPO either) that execute theese operations (needing to reload you vms afterwards). And if it is even more complex, you could go the complete way to CQRS perhaps with event sourcing and perhaps modeling with DDD.
I'm in the process of doing the analysis of a potentially big web site, and I have a number of questions.
The web site is going to be written in ASP.NET MVC 3 with razor view engine. In most examples I find that controllers directly use the underlying database (using domain/repository pattern), so there's no WCF service in between. My first question is: is this architecture suitable for a big site with a lot of traffic? It's always possible to load balance the site, but is this a good approach? Or should I make the site use WCF services that interact with the data?
Question 2: I would like to adopt CQS principles, which means that I want to separate the querying from the commanding part. So this means that the querying part will have a different model (optimized for the views) than the commanding part (optimized to business intend and only containing properties that are needed for completing the command) - but both act on the same database. Do you think this is a good idea?
Thanks for the advice!
For scalability, it helps to separate back-end code from front-end code. So if you put UI code in the MVC project and as much processing code as possible in one or more separate WCF and business logic projects, not only will your code be clearer but you will also be able to scale the layers/tiers independently of each other.
CQRS is great for high-traffic websites. I think CQRS, properly combined with a good base library for DDD, is good even for low-traffic sites because it makes business logic easier to implement. The separation of data into a read-optimized model and a write-optimized model makes sense from an architectural point of view also because it makes changes easier to do (maybe some more work, but it's definitely easier to make changes without breaking something).
However, if both act on the same database, I would make sure that the read model consists entirely of Views so that you can modify entities as needed without breaking the Read code. This has the advantage that you'll need to write less code, but your write model will still consist of a full-fledged entity model rather than just an event store.
EDIT to answer your extra questions:
What I like to do is use a WCF Data Service for the Read model. This technology (specific to .NET 4.0) builds an OData (= REST + Atom with LINQ support) web service on top of a data model, such as an Entity Framework EDMX.
So, I build a Read model in SQL Server (Views), then build an Entity Framework model from that, then build a WCF Data Service on top of that, in read-only mode. That sounds a lot more complicated than it is, it only takes a few minutes. You don't need to create yet another model, just expose the EDMX as read-only. See also http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc668794.aspx.
The Command service is then just a one-way regular WCF service, the Read service is the WCF Data Service, and your MVC application consumes them both.
I Am creating a web application and first use Entity Framework. I created Entity Data Model and now I am not sure, how to proceed now.
Premise: My database is really simple (Rating, WebPage, Visitor) and database tables corresponds to the business objects.
My suggestion is 3tier architecture but how to make it?
It is good idea create partial classes with the same name as Entity Framework objects (Rating, Visitor) and declare here new methods (GetAverageRating()...)? Or is better create some VisitorProvider, RatingProvider and place logic here?
It is better use EF objects in BLL and Presentation Layer or I should create my own BO objects on my BLL layer and transform EF object to BO?
I'm think, it is more practical use static methods on my DAL than instantiate classes on BLL. Do you agree?
Can you recommend me some best practices? I have many ideas how to create it, but I do not know what is the right.
3 layer architecture is quite popular but what it really means?
Presentation layer
Application layer
Database layer
If you ask what each layer means you can be pretty sure you will get several different answers. You can further divide each layer into sublayer and build layered hell like:
Client side presentation layer
Server side view layer
Controller layer
Service facade layer
Service layer
Domain objects layer
Repository + Factory layer
ORM layer
Stored procedure layer
Database view layer
Database table layer
WTF? That is just example that application can be easily over architected. It can go even worse if you insist that only neighbours can exchange data and if you decide to add special type of objects to be exchanged between layers instead of flowing sing set of objects through multiple layers.
Add layers which you need to make you more comfortable with developing the application and which will do reasonable separation of concerns and maintainability needed for the scale of your application. You can simply do the most simplest application which will be used just few weeks and must be developed as fast as possible. In such case you can do that within few days simply by using ASP.NET web forms and data source controls (or ASP.NET dynamic data). It can be badly extensible but in such situation it is exactly what you need to implement application quickly. Writing layers and doing all the stuff around maintainability and extensibility is reasonable if you need it. Another quick prototyping technique is ASP.NET MVC Scaffolding which can create quick multilayered skeleton of the application which can be further modified.
Both approaches are correct and it only depends on the approach you like. The first is called active record pattern but it is not used very often with entity framework. The second approach is more popular. You can either use EF directly in some middle class which you called Provider (common name is also Service). This class will do both data access logic and business logic. In more complex applications developers like to somehow wrap EF to separate class following repository pattern and call the repository either from service or directly from web app. code behind or controller (depending on amount of business logic). Try to do it without repository first. My personal opinion is that people should start to use repository only once they understand EF itself.
Again both approaches are correct. In a simple application it is fully acceptable to create EF model with POCO classes (EFv4.x) and use them in all layers. If you are using ASP.NET MVC you can find that you need special classes as view models to fully represent needs of your individual views. In a more complex application you can have separate objects exposed from a business layer - this is especially used if the business layer is exposed as a remote service (WCF).
It depends how you write these DAL methods - it is absolutely necessary to not share the EF context among requests! It also depends if you want to write some test or not. Layer defined by static methods is something which goes directly against testable architecture where you want unit test just single layer (unit testing with EF can be hard). It also depends if you want to use dependency injection which is based on instances.
I'm working on a small application from scratch and using it to try to teach myself architecture and design concepts. It's a .NET 3.5, WPF application, and I'm using Sql Compact Edition as my data store.
I'm working on the business logic layer, and have just now begun to write the DAL. I'm just using SqlCeComamnds to send over simple queries and SqlCeResultSet to get at the results. I'm starting to design my Insert and Update methods, and here's the issue - I don't know the best way to get the necessary data from the BLL into the DAL. Do I pass in a generic collection? Do I have a massive parameter list with all the data for the database? Do I simply pass in the actual business object (thus tying my DAL to the conrete stuff in the BLL?).
I thought about using interfaces - simply passing IBusinessObjectA into the DAL, which provides the simplicity I'm looking for without tying me TOO tightly to current implementations. What do you guys think?
I don't think there is a simple answer to your questions because there are many options depending on the circumstances. I have found it helpful to read the two books below to help me understand the problems you describe better.
MS .NET: Architecting Applications for the Enterprise (Esposito, Saltarello)
MS Application Architecture Guide, 2nd edition.
The second book is available online. Look here.
I think it is OK to pass the Business object to the Data Access Layer. I think the BLL's job is just to work with its objects, to check if all rules are being followed, about what can be saved, by whom, on what fields, time, etc.
Once it has done that it should pass it to the DAL, and I think it is IT'S job to figure out how to convert what it got into something that can be persisted, but it wont check what is being persisted or read or by whom, it will just do it. This could be straight foward, a la linq, but if your logic mdoels do not match your data model 1:1, then the DAL should do all the conversion.
About tying your DAL to the stuff in the BLL, I think you should worry about the other way around, tying your BLL to your DAL. I would use an interface to represent your DAL (as in IRepository) that way you can make your BLL call any kind of persistance mechanism just by changing the type of IRepository it is using (extra points if you use IoC :P). The concrete classes that implement the IRepository would be tied to the business objects, but they have to know what is it that they are saving don't they? while the BLL does NOT have to know what is doing the saving.
To pass business object in the DAL is the simpler and fastest method. It works in small projects, but have same disadvantages:
1) Business Objects are part of BLL layer, and if you pass objects in BLL then DAL becomes dependent of BLL. low layer knows about upper one - this contradicts the idea of layers at all.
2) Business Object are usially very complex to save it directly in BD. In this case it is better to introduce new "Mappers" intermediate layer.
To overcome all these issues I usially make interface to DAL independent of Business Objects. I use "Row" classes instead - representation of one record in the database or XML. In .NET 3.5 linqtosql autogenerated classes can be used for this purpose.
If I was in your position, I'd probably use LINQ to SQL to define my data access layer - it'll save you lots of work maintaining all that SqlCeFooBar stuff and give you a designer (of sorts) for maintaining your database that you would otherwise lack, using SQL CE.
So in that case, I'd probably couple the business logic layer pretty tightly to the entities exposed by the L2S layer. The justification being that the entities are the business objects, albeit devoid of any services.
I probably wouldn't let the entities get as far up the hierarchy as the UI though. At that level, it makes much more sense to use a model specifically for the view - especially given that you're using WPF.
Of course, all of this depends upon the size and complexity of your application. I'm assuming it's a fairly small scale application (single user?) given that you're using SQL CE.
We are currently revamping our architecture and design of application. We have just completed design of Data Access Layer which is generic in the sense that it works using XML and reflection to persist data.
Any ways now we are in the phase of designing business layer. We have read some books related to Enterprise Architecture and Design so we have found that there are few patterns that can be applied on business layer. Table Pattern and Domain Model are example of such patterns. Also we have found Domain Driven Design as well.
Earlier we decided to build Entities against table objects. But we found that there is difference in Entities and Value Objects when it comes to DDD. For those of you who have gone through such design. Please guide me related to pattern, practice and sample.
Thank you in advance! Also please feel free to discuss if you didn't get any point of mine.
#Adil, this is not an answer to your original question, but I would advise you to revise your decision to roll your own data access layer. You note that you'd like to go to NHibernate: just do it now.
IMO, writing an ORM is a waste of time unless you have some very specific restrictions. There are a wealth of options out there, with hundreds of hours of effort poured into them already. Leverage it! LINQ2SQL, Entity framework, NHibernate, Subsonic, LLBLGen are all good, and there are more out there.
Note too that if you roll your own you won't get to use the goodness that is LINQ without a lot of effort.
As far as layering goes, try not to go nuts: keep the number of layers in check and concentrate instead on building a worthwhile interface between them to guard against your abstractions leaking.
I've seen a number of very "patterned", beautifully layered projects that in use end up with logic everywhere and persistence abstractions leaked all over the place. Keep it simple!
CSLA.NET works pretty well as a base for the business layer.
#Adil,
I'm not very experient user, anyway, this is the kind of model I'm using (also with NHibernate).
GUI - with all the web forms and so on
BLL - The catalogs that are responsible for creating instances of new objects
DAL - The place where classes responsible for interaction with NHibernate are implemented. The NHibernate mapping files are here.
Model - Class Library that is used by the BLL and DAL for data transfer object between.
Different patterns are used. For example, the BLL and DAL have a Factory class that allow access to an interface. The catalogs are Singleton classes. All of the catalogs are accessible using a master Singleton class representing my business logic top object (for example "Enterprise" => "Enterprise.PeopleCatalog".
Anyway, hope it helped...
#AngryHacker, thanks for the tip, could you give an example of CSLA.NET?