I am familiar with MVC/MVP though my question is simple, I'm about to program a simple Instant Messaging software when the engine and communication part is an open API. so my software will have about 3 forms, a splash screen with login details, the options form and a main form with all the functionality like: Friends List, Send message, Received messages (tabbed), search user, etc.
In UI perspective, its important for the GUI to be in 1 form in my application.
So my question is, for the only complicated form that I'm going to have, is it necessary to implement an MVP design pattern or in this case its better to just go straight forward and put all the logic in 1 place?
THANKS
Janalopa!
I think that is always best to have a separation of concerns, particularly in the GUI.
My 2 cents worth is to always code in an MVC way. If it's worth coding it's worth coding well.
Ask yourself whether you can see your application growing past the current spec? It's going to be easier to code against an mvc framework than any other.
Anyway, MVC! :)
If you wish to expose an API to your web app, you definitely benefit from a clear separation of concerns. If MVP or another pattern is the right way to go is up to you, but you should try to have your app as loosely coupled as possible, so that you can
a) test it
and
b) expose it at whichever level that feels appropriate.
For example, you might want to start with writing your own chat form that posts and gets updates from a DB. If you have a loosely coupled server side app behind it, you can choose whether to expose the chat at the repository level, service level, controller layer or with a separate API layer that interacts with the same interface as your own UI.
EDIT: As a final comment, if you're starting with a new project a chat is definitely much easier to implement in ASP.NET MVC than WebForms, as MVC is in many ways easier to work with ajax calls and updates.
Related
I'm writing a Windows version of my Mac app (C# Winforms) and would like some advice on what design pattern to use.
My Mac app uses an MVC pattern with Core Data for storage. This is a simplified diagram of the models and relationships:
The desktop app collects logs on a background thread and periodically uploads them to my web app. The database is used to store both the user's account information and logs, and the app has a 3 views to display (and collect) the user's data.
I've done some reading and it seems that MVP is the recommended design pattern for WinForms apps, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I think that my app is simple enough to write without using an external framework like MVC# but as I have never made a WinForms app before I am only speculating.
Can someone recommend the best way to go about this?
Patterns are really just guides as to what problem it is trying to solve. Where an MVC would work well for a web app that relies on pages and redirects etc a winform app can benefit from using MVP.
Having said that the two patterns are siblings of a wider UI pattern and even according to Martin Fowler the MVP pattern can be further split. Look at his article to get a good feel for the appropriate pattern. He has broken the MVP to Supervising Controller and Passive View. Even the new MPF MVVM pattern is actually based on the PresentationModel pattern.
I would say look at the patterns and see what fits rather than trying to use a pattern because you used it in another scenario.
In my experience for a winforms application (which supports nice databinding) you can use MVC with a supervising controller pattern. Read through this question What are MVP and MVC and what is the difference? & http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2007/05/25/build-you-own-cab-part-3-the-supervising-controller-pattern/
You should take a look at Jeremy Miller's Build your own cab series :
http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2007/07/26/the-build-your-own-cab-series-table-of-contents/
Start to work on it, do some screen mockups, do some design, write some code.
You could start with a few small prototype, try out different design. Don't go too far in your exploration phase so that you don't hesitate to throw it away and start over if you need.
Try to keep your choice open as much as possible, don't paint yourself into a corner, and delay this decision until your really need to choose one way over another.
By then you will probably have a much better Idea of what you need.
Is it wise to build a large application entirely based off SOA? Or just some portions? User account logins, accounting, gis mapping, sales, etc?
In other words, would it be wise to build a GUI to such an application in HTML & Javascript which does all it's exchanges via ajax to .NET web services on the back-end?
I can't see it worth loosing all the .net .aspx functionality such as forms authentication, view state, etc. But my co-worker is saying if we are going to go SOA there is no need for .NET on the front end. But i think there should be some sort of balance. Where do you draw the line? Should all calls to the database go through the web services?
I just want to say that "with SOA we’re building for change, while with Traditional systems engineering, we’re building for stability."
The problem with stability, of course, is, it only takes the business so far — if the organization requires business agility, then they’re much better off implementing SOA.
So, It solely depends on what you want to achieve, you are the one who should draw the boundary.
I read it in article on SOA few days back as I'm too working on SOA.
EDIT:
Meanwhile I came across this article and thought of sharing with you.
The video quite explains the current scenario of SOA and its views by different people.
I'm getting the words of the song 'If I had a hammer' coming to mind. SOA is an architectural approach to develop software as a series of services. In my opinion this is best for systems that have less than immediate latency and limited bandwidth, and high cost in access etc (these are all obviously highly subjective). You don't need full SOA just get loose couping between components which I would argue is a good goal to achieve.
DB calls can go through a service, take ADO.NET data services for example however you really have to weigh up with what the service is to provide. Take caching. A decent approach to SOA will consider that data is may need to be cached to reduce service load. So can your data be stale in the UI? Are you allowing that use case? Is right for login info to be stale (a rough example I know but possibly something that may need to be addressed).
All in all - it depends. I think some things lend themselves to SOA very well. If you take a DDD approach then the services that represent Domains would probably do so. In this way your UI talks to domain services and not rows in table as the DB is abstracted behind domain services.
Don't use one methodology to solve all problems.
See this SO question too
It's a service oriented architecture, not a service exclusive architecture.
Presentation logic and plumbing have to live somewhere; it all depends on where it makes the most sense for it to live.
For example, let's say you have a UI component that relies on a highly chatty but efficient set of calls to a database to generate a complex analysis of something (take your pick). If your web browser is making all those calls, you introduce massive network latency and concurrency issues. If a web service makes all those calls, you are potentially putting presentation logic into it to format that result.
If you are using Session state (or web services period), you are essentially using ASP.Net anyway. Try uninstalling it and see if your web services still run.
If presentation logic needs to live on the server side, it is better for it to live within a framework intended for presentation rather than a web service, IMO. If you haven't looked at MVC 2, do so. It makes it incredibly easy to set up an application that melds browser and server UI support (for example, jQuery validator controls backed by server-side validation).
Conversely, the web browser provides an expressive platform. Assuming browser support and team knowledge, the AJAX/SOA architecture you describe is a good one. I'm using it more and more and trying to make my server pages cleaner and simpler but I have no plans to exclude ASP.Net from my toolkit any time soon.
Client implementation should be completely disconnected from the back end web service in a SOA. The service should be able to be consumed by ANY client. If you are using .NET on the back end and front end because they can be coded to directly communicate, then you are missing the point, because now they are tightly coupled and what you have now is a stove pipe application. The client should have no idea how the server side is implemented -- shouldn't matter if the back-end web service is built using .NET, Java, or whatever.
In a true SOA, you should be able to search for services in the services repository, perhaps tie the outputs in with other services or use XSLT to create alternative outputs that weren't necessarily considered when the original service was built, and consume it in a standard way in any client on the front end.
It sounds like what you're really asking is how to build a single application. The point of a SOA is to provide standard data sets through re-usable interfaces, that have no specific application or implementation in mind. To start out building a single application with the entire back-end comprised of SOA services would be a huge undertaking. In MY mind, each back-end service should be built because of it's intrinsic value all on it's own and be provided to the entire SOA "domain". Then when you or I decide to make a client that does X, Y, and Z, we can just go find those capabilities in the SOA and injest them.
I created a Windows Form executable in .NET 3.5 that uses a dll to communicate with a machine that scans checks. I'm eventually going to need to move from an executable to a Web Form that can do the same thing. This will be months from now, but I wanted to start doing the research now as I have not done this before. I'm going to need to use ActiveX in order to communicate with the device via a Web Form. I've also not done this before.
I'd like to keep the functionality of my existing executable without having to rewrite most of it, although I do understand that some of it will need to be rewritten. I've done research on ActiveX and how to use it, but I wanted to know if someone has had a similar situation as this. What did you do to convert an exe to a web program? Are there good, specific sources out there that I'm overlooking that can point me in the right direction for this situation? Is there any advice that you can give from your experiences that can help me to reduce mistakes? The company that I work for does not have anyone else here that has done this before, so I've got to teach myself everything needed to do this.
Thanks in advance.
This is where separation of concerns and n-tier design shine through. Hopefully your UI layer is loosely coupled from your domain model. If this is the case, you can code a second IU layer for the web. And not have to change your domain model at all. Then you can compile for each scenario.
*note - In practical use I have always had to extend my business domain to account for some issues with the second UI, but those modifications have usually been minor, and have pointed out places where I had coupled too tightly anyway.
Another option you may consider is creating a web services layer over your business domain code. And then coding a web application that communicates with your domain model via those web services calls. This may have performance implications, and would not be my preferred method of accomplishing this. Though you may find it more manageable if you don't have a well designed application to start with.
"I'd like to keep the functionality of my existing executable without having to rewrite most of it"
In general if you extract as much logic as possible into its own assembly/dll, you can reuse that from whatever UI framework you want. Just make sure you're not doing anything UI specific in there (throwing up dialog boxes, etc).
Normally, converting winforms to webforms is quite possible, although typically a slow development process. Even if you've got the cleanest domain layer in the world, the fact that objects in your web page are thrown away every time means that a web domain layer is normally written very differently to a desktop domain layer.
However, in your case the device - server communication is going to be extra difficult.
Have you looked at xbap? It's basically a way to deploy WPF applications into a web page. It requires your clients to have the right version of .NET installed, but it's going to be the easiest path for you, especially considering that you can host winforms in WPF...
You may take a look at Silverlight 4,
http://silverlight.net/getstarted/silverlight-4-beta/
It contains many features that ASP.NET Web Forms hasn't.
If your team can accept something like ActiveX, why not Silverlight 4? The only disadvantage is that SL4 is still in Beta.
I'm developing an three layer ASP.NET application with C# and Visual Studio 2008 SP1. I'm using WebForms.
I'm wondering to convert that application to a Silverlight application. Maybe I can reuse a lot of code of ASP.NET layer.
What do you think about?
Assuming you have the typical presentation, business logic, and data layers, and also assuming that you have separated your code diligently into these layers, you should be able to replace your Web Forms with a Silverlight interface and leave your BL and DAL intact.
Real projects tend to be somewhat messy, however, making such a transition more difficult. If you're using SqlDataSource you might have problems.
Those are some good points #Andy, and to expand on what he said:
i'm doing that very same thing right now. Because i have a rather comprehensive business layer, i have been able to do a lot of work (a couple of weeks worth), and in that time i have only had to add one function to that business layer. This is important because it reduces the amount of testing required. It also makes any remaining testing easier as it is easier to compare the output of the old version of the application with the new version.
One pattern that really helped to achieve this was the facade pattern. I built a WCF layer that sits over top of the business layer, and by using the facade pattern i can return results that are more suitable for the new silverlight interface, without interfering with the business layer.
It is most likely though that your new UI will have a drastically different architecture than the ASP.NET version. You will be able to achieve a far cleaner separation between UI, code and data. Some of the ASP.NET code that i was quite proud of looks positively mangy next to the equivalent silverlight code. Be prepared to chop your old code up, and eliminate those business rules from the immediate code behind :)
If you're goal is simply to replicate the UI behaviour as delivered by ASP.NET then yes assuming good partitioning you could re-use quite a bit of code. You'd have ask why you would want to do that though.
On the other hand if the goal is to provide a much richer interactive experience to the user then its likely that you'll find even a well designed business layer just doesn't behave the way such a radically different UI needs it to.
What are the fundamental techniques to make most part of my C# source code UI independent?
For example, I would like to write my source code for Winforms desktop application which I shall be able to plug into asp.net web application or a WPF application with very minor changes. I.e. I shall be able to use the same source code irrespective of UI technology to make it future-proof.
I know CSLA framework can do that.
But if I don't use CSLA (it takes some time to learn a new framework and at present I don't have that much time to spend on it), what points should be taken care of to achieve this kind of ability in my C# code?
Can you give me an example? I already use Business Objects and layering technique in my applications. But even so I have seen that it needs a lot of coding to plug my code to new UI technologies.
Please do not provide me with any superficial answer.
The best way to do UI independent coding is to seperate the logic from the presentation. Take a look at the MVC pattern.
This is more of an discipline issue with your design rather than a framework issue. A framework can't not force you to design properly. It can make things easier for you if you design the app properly, however there are always ways around the enforcement of it.
To make your code UI independent, put the logic that is not dependent upon UI into a separate layer or assembly. Separate logic from presentation. It's what all the patterns like MVC, MVP, and MVVM follow. It's such a fundamental piece of software structure that it should be ingrained upon you; if it's not, make it so.
Separate logic from presentation. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Edit:
Can you give me an example? I already use BO and layering technique in my applications. But even so I have seen that it needs a lot of coding to plug my code to new UI technologies.
Please do not provide me with any superficial answer.
I see that you have edited. Allow me to elaborate:
There's no getting away from some logic that is UI-dependent. UIs are not a shell; they still have logic and functionality. But that functionality should only be geared toward user interaction. Display data. Gather data. Fancy graphical tricks and animations, if your preferences lie in that direction.
The rest goes to the business layer, and that stuff can be reused. If you layer properly, you can avoid having to rewrite your core functionality every time you write the program for a new UI framework.
But you still have to rewrite the UI stuff.
If you're building a multi-tier application, your business logic, data access, etc should already be separated into classes that are completely independent of your UI. Repurposing those libraries for a different target platform - desktop vs web, etc - should be a simple matter of referencing your existing libraries from your new application.
This is a fundamental rule of software development. Although patterns and frameworks like MVC, etc enforce this more stringently, it's ultimately up to you to design your application correctly. This sort of task doesn't require learning a new technology - just common sense and a tiny bit of experience.
Check out Martin Fowler's excellent article on this topic.
GUI Architectures, Including MVC, MVP, MVPC
Take a look at the explanation of MVVM(Model-View-ViewModel) at MSDN Magazine. MVVM is widely used for WPF application development.