I would like your guidance on this.
I'm trying to build a website that has two "players" (which, I assume can be translated to "roles"?). One player is "consumer" and the second player is "supplier".
Both are interacting through mutual (sql server) database.
Now I would like to have totally separate systems each player, with totally different authentication mechanisms.
However, I would like to have the consumers system as sub-domain of the main domain, i.e., I would like to have the consumer system under 'mydomain.com', and the suppliers system under 'supplier.mydomain.com'.
However, I can't figure out how to technically do this? Can I create another web project in my solution, call it 'suppliers' and let it include all the features of the suppliers system?
Or should I create separate controllers for the suppliers features inside the main project?
The first option sounds most "clean" to me, however, how can I route the user from the main (the consumers) website to the suppliers website based on the subdomain?
If I choose the second option, how can I make sure that user which authenticated as customer will not be able to perform as supplier?
This is probably very common task to do, any good tutorial or example for this?
You will create two separate IIS applications - one for your consumers and another for your suppliers.
You will then set the host headers on each to your required domain and subdomain. IIS will then take care of routing URLs to your separate applications. Instructions for setting IIS host headers here https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753195.aspx
As for managing application code, given you want complete separation I would suggest creating three Visual Studio projects:
Web application for consumers
Web application for suppliers
Class library of shared code - database logic etc
You are then able to develop and deploy each web application independently.
In terms of tutorials, there is quite a lot available, here are a few which will help you:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211020150710/https://www.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/122403-1.aspx
https://www.simple-talk.com/dotnet/.net-framework/partitioning-your-code-base-through-.net-assemblies-and-visual-studio-projects/
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/207101/managing-multiple-projects-that-share-code-customization
for this problem, so use "Area" =
https://msdn.microsoft.com/pt-br/library/ee671793(v=vs.100).aspx
Related
I have three different website.
can we run on a single instance in umbracocms.
how can i map three different website in single umbracocms and host on serv
You can, but that doesn't always mean that you should. If you want three different sites, you can have three root nodes, and set the hostname for each of the sites to the domain that you want to use. Once you've done that, just point the three domain names at your IIS website, and you should be good to go.
You'll need to make sure that you set all of the back office permissions properly if you don't want the users to be able to each of the sites. If the sites are all for the same client, and have common design, then hosting in one instance is probably OK. If they're all different and for different clients, it'll be much easier to manage them as separate Umbraco sites, IMHO.
First you need to setup the content tree in your Umbraco backoffice.
Create a home node for each website and setup the correct hostnames.
After that view this wiki page that explains what needs to be done at your server.
https://our.umbraco.org/wiki/how-tos/running-multiple-websites-on-one-umbraco-installation
VS2013 update 4, MVC5
Still relatively new to MVC. To divide functional domains within an MVC project the use of Areas seems clear from these posts (olderSOlink, newerMVC5link).
Is there ever a reason that sub-domains would be integrated as part of a solution involving different functional domains of a given MVC project? I don't have a reason to want to make use of sub-domains, I'm just asking because I don't know if there is some advantage I should know about.
Is it even possible without great difficulty? For example, can logons transfer across sub-domains? Would there be other difficult issues to address?
At present the project I am building is 'relatively' small and will have around 5 major domains so I'm assuming Areas is the best architecture to isolate these domains, but I wanted to ask for guidance before I go too far and make decisions that would make the use of sub-domains difficult in the event there is a compelling reason to use them in a single MVC project.
I generally use subdomains to separate major application functionality or if I have multiple servers that I want to be on the same domain name.
To answer your login question, if you are using the same application you will remain logged in on the whole domain (depending on your method of using sessions, the cookie will be accessible to the domain as a whole).
If you are questioning using subdomains, they are really just a naming scheme so you could categorize your 5 major applications into one domain with different paths (eg. /portal, /store, /etc..) then later you could point store.domain.com -> domain.com/store. So it's pretty flexible in the end.
I'm creating a website for a company which has 3 different firms. The domain hence will have 3 sub-domains like this:
www.example.com
firm1.example.com <-> www.example.com/firm1
firm2.example.com <-> www.example.com/firm2
firm3.example.com <-> www.example.com/firm3
The firms will not share code between each other. Each firm has its own db hosted on the same server. Each firm will have a link to main page ie, www.example.com.
I decided to create one module for each firm and a main module which will be called from main.dart. Now how and when do I call the second module. While doing so, I'm not understanding the necessity of having a module over controller.
Is this right to modularize the app in this scenario?
What are the advantages of having multiple modules?
Should we use one router for each module? The reason I ask this is that in the future if I plan to remove firm3 and put it in a separate domain which will no longer be sticking to the main application, then I will have to remove the corresponding routes from the router which is unlikely for a modularized app.
A module is for combining a group of type registrations for the injector. Usually you also have several modules even when you have only one company.
Have a look at this example: https://github.com/akserg/angular.dart.ui/blob/master/lib/carousel/carousel.dart
This is a Carousel component which consists of two components which are always used together and which depends on the TransitionModule.
The CarouselModule allows you to register all those types with just install(new CarouselModule);
A module has nothing to do with program logic, it is more for registering a group of Angular components, directives, services, ... at once.
A controller is all about program logic.
What are the differences between these three companies?
You could create three different apps and move the code you want to reuse between these apps in a package and import this package from these three apps.
Update
If the 3 apps share no code it doesn't make any sense to put them in one application.
You can use virtual directories functionality of the web server you are using.
What you get is a dependency between applications that have otherwise nothing in common (besides being served from the same server).
You have to cope with code size. Each user loads the code for 3 apps even though he wants and can only use 1/3 of this.
In Dart it is not so easy to load code on demand (at least not yet).
Summary: Your approach has no advantage and serius disadvantages. Create three independent apps instead.
Modules are not the same thing as Controllers. A module holds all of the parts of your application. That includes Controllers, Services, Directives, etc. A Controller is only one thing that belongs to a Module. A Module not only holds parts of your application, but it also allows each of the pieces to find each other. Modules are the basis of dependency injection.
So you have 3 different firms within a single company. Are those firms apart of the same domain? Are they separate websites or a single website? If each firm has their own domain or separate websites you will have no choice but to separate them into separate angular apps. A single page application cannot span multiple domains.
If you are defining routers per module then you're looking having separate applications. You can define 3 separate modules and import them into a Main application, but the Main application would define the router. I'm not entirely sure you can have multiple routers per app in separate modules. I can't find any examples of that. In theory maybe, but it seems like it would be difficult to maintain.
But only given what we know it's hard to make any more recommendations because how the 3 firms interact isn't really known. Will they share code? Do they have to be all in a single page application or can you split them into separate html pages each with their own angular app?
Updated:
So I would separate each firm into their own App with their own router. I would make them each a separate single page app. You can choose to share code or not. My application consists of multiple single page apps and I share code between them. Here is how I do it:
var RegistrationApp = angular.module("RegistrationApp", ["ngResource",'ui.bootstrap',"ngRoute", "ngAnimate"]);
var App = RegistrationApp;
Then in any other type of thing I define I use the global variable App like so:
App.factory("RegistrationService", function($http) {
By having the global variable App defined in all of my applications that I build I can share code simply by including those components in with the app the client is loading and it'll pull in that code into that App's module.
Login will be something the server side does and it will drop a cookie on your browser so each app technically could use that authentication provided the cooke maps to the domain. If you have separate URLs for each firm (ie firm1.company.com, firm2.company.com, firm3.company.com) you have to be careful how that cookie is defined because by default if you login under say www.company.com that cookie will not be seen by firm1,firm2,firm3 because those are different domains. You'll have to set a cookie for .company.com so subdomains can see it. But if you do it right login won't require communication between firms/Apps.
I think the easiest would be to manage that at webserver level.
If I understood well, you have 4 independent sites:
www.example.com
firm1.example.com
firm2.example.com
firm3.example.com
I you are using Apache, that would mean different 4 virtual hosts. Then, you just need to redirect www.example.com/firmN to firmN.example.com using, for instance, .htaccess.
Alseo, security-wise, this method allows to have the data of each company in a separate container, if once you have an attack in one site, you don't want the attacker to have access to all the other sites.
Consider an MVC4/EF5 project:
Creating a web application which will have 3 modules.
Based on the customer license, we will enable or disable 1-3 of the modules.
Each of the modules will deal with a handful of common tables (Users, Company, etc).
Each of the modules will deal with tables specific to their functionality (PO's, Timesheets, etc)
An admin portal, admin users in a seperate table from regular users.
data passed to views using view models
eventually there will be a JSON service for exposing parts of the applications functionality.
There will be multiple deployments of this application with slight customization (beyond just enabling/disabling each of the three modules).
The Plan so far:
Separate dll for Model
Separate dll for each Module/Functional area.
Separate dll for the ViewModels
Separate dll for admin portal
Seperate dll for the web service
Questions:
Is anything gained by a seperate dll for ViewModels?
Tips for managing multiple variations of the same application, with regards to project organization, and source control?
Should there be a separate dll for authentication (membership and role providers)?
Any other thoughts? (Sorry for the open ended/loaded question, maybe I should remove this one)
My advice:
Don't try to solve your problems with Source Control. Unless you are
really good with branching/merging and very very disciplined. I'd
recommend one code base that is pulled together with Di/IoC
DI/IoC lots and lots of it - Look at Autofac and the Mutli-tenancy
extra. Keep everything loosely coupled as much as possible
Testing - TDD as everything needs to be loosely coupled lots of testing - look at Autofixture/AutoMoq
Extension points galore - layers of re-direction are your friend as
everyone will want different implemenations. Our core architectural elements
is a CQRS light style - Commands, Command Validators, Queries, and
Domain Events
Keep everyone on the same database structure (unless you go NoSQL
etc)
Use Onion Architecture - Make 3 projects, Web
(MVC5/WebAPI/ViewModels), Infrastructure (all the technical stuff
Repository implemenations etc), Domain Layer
Then make projects per client with overrides - e.g. Custom
ITimeSheetCalculator etc
Include ViewModels in Web Project - Look at per tenant ViewModel
mappings if required. Use AutoMapper
Look at stuff like VirtualPathProvider EmbeddedVirtualPath provider
so you can put views CSS in client DLL
Create an Ambient Configuration file that defines what is turned on per tenant. Feature toggles will be required. Especially during dev for features not yet complete
Find yourself a canary - a client you can work with on a beta version who you trust and can give good feedback
For security look at using Claims Based Identity - comes baked into MVC5. Makes it easier to have different security rules pre tenant etc
If you are working with multiple clients and they all want different
features/or same feature but implemented differently you need get the strongest person you can get to gather requirements. You can't do traditional Scrum and have developers etc and work directly with all the clients. You need someone in your company acting as proxy product owner who will take ownership of the problem of getting all clients to agree on general features
Consider Azure has lots of nice features we have used. Easily allows scale up and down.
Good luck
So I am creating a web app, that will give each registered user a unique 'workspace'. This workspace should be accessible by anybody they give permission to.
I have the main domain for my marketing website, but I am trying to figure out how to manage the nitty-gritty domain management of the web app itself.
Should I buy generic domains that I then use to allow the users to chose one of them for their workspace, and create a unique subdomain there, or how should I approach this?
My web app is written in Rails.
The term Domain has a few meanings - I assume you mean "Domain" as in the hostname in a Domain Name or URL, also known as the "third-level domain name" (e.g: www.mysite.com - where mysite.com is the hostname).
I am trying to figure out how to
manage the nitty-gritty domain
management of the web app itself
I've usd 4th level domains before (also known as local hostnames, e.g: images.mysite.com, admin.mysite.com), but these were provisied via a helpdesk at the telco who managed the A-Records for our domain name, so it wasn't a quick and easy automated process.
I've also seen hosting firms provide web-based tools that allwo you to do this yourself - where they manage the A-Record.
In both cases management of the 4th level domains is performed manually. I haven't hread of anyone automating this within an app the have developed - it's obviously possible but definately non-trival.
Should I buy generic domains that I
then use to allow the users to chose
one of them for their workspace, and
create a unique subdomain there, or
how should I approach this?
It depends. Even if you host the application there's no reason why the client can't set-up a 4th level domain that points at your server and not their own; this would mean that your app would need to lookout for the 4th level domain only as there's no guaratee they'll be using a 3rd level domain your app "knows about".
Say John Brown from 'Studio ABC' signs
up at mysite.com, what should I do?
Give them studioabc.mysite.com or
mysite.com/studioabc
It depends on what you want to achieve and what over-heads your comfortable with:
The "mysite.com/studioabc" option should be easy to auto-provision through your app, so in some ways that'd be easier to work with.
A problem with the "mysite.com/studioabc" option is that (depending on how much control you have over the web server) all your files (from all clients) will be in the same place - that will make it more complex to manage (back-ups, etc).
The "studioabc.mysite.com" is going to be harder and slower to provision (as DNS changes are required), but you have the advantage in that you can run them as seperate sites if you want to. For example, if "thebeatles.mysite.com" takes off you'd be able to move it to a different physcial web server that had better performance, but you can't move "mysite.com/thebeatles" so easily.
In both cases your app will be a Multi-tenanted one (except in cases such as studioXXX.mysite.com where the site is hosted elsewhere); data access becomes an issue - keeping the clients data separate. There's different approaches you can take for this, see this article on Multi-Tenant Data Architecture. (BTW - I know it's an MS article and you're working in Rails! - but it's an excellent article which will be helpful).
Buying a generic name is, well, generic. If you wanted to foster a community of clients around a particular thing then get a domain name that makes sense for that; if you use your own domain name it would in-effect be a form of advertising.
And rather than it being mysite.com,
should it be obscuredomain.com that
the actual web app resides at and
therefore gives the subdomains of,
because mysite.com is the marketing
site.
I think either will work - the question is what do you think you're clients would prefer? How does that stack up with your business model? The domain name is an important part of any online presence (from a marketing side) as it helps define the identity of the site and those who use it - so choose carefully.
Do you ever want to sell this off? If you do you'd want to build it on a domain name that you were happy to sell with it. So with that in mind I'd have a domain name for your product / service and a seperate one for your business - assuming that you'd one day want to sell the site but not your business. Alternatively, if the website is the business and you're happy to sell them as a whole package then I'd put it all under the same domain name.
Finally, you might have more than one domain, each providing a different level of service (and each could have 4th level domains hanging off it instead of www):
www.mysite.com
www.mysitepremium.com
www.mysitecheapskate.com