Related
I've been seeing a lot of articles and references about how to use this patterns for my first (please keep this in mind) serious project with ASP.NET MVC 3 and EF.
The project is not so big (13 tables) and it's basically a CRUD maintenance: organisations that have some users; users that can belong to a group and can create some work areas and templates... Nothing complicated. The point is that this will be the first of a project series and I'd like to create a base to work with.
My questions are:
Which of the previous patterns is the best? Does it depend of the project size?
My models would be these:
Unit of work
Dependency Injection
Do you think they are good enough and appropriate for my project?
I appreciate all your comments.
Serious application doesn't mean to be complex at first sight.
Over engineering an application upfront can be a real disaster, especially if you don't grasp all the technologies involved.
My advice would be to keep it simple. Create a basic application that fulfill requirements (get the thing done and make your boss happy) and then add new concepts along your learning path.
That doesn't mean I promote bad code, no way! Keep your code clean, well organized, etc. But don't be killed by the fear of doing something wrong.
It's normal for a developer to look back to an application made a few weeks ago and then realize that he did some shitty stuff. That's how we progress!
Last but not least, have FUN!
ASP.NET website provides usefull resources to learn the framework and all related guidances. There are a few application samples created step-by-step.
ASP.NET MVC was built with Dependency Injection in mind.
If you want to give a chance to your code to be loosely coupled and easier to change in the future you have to follow the patterns like Dependency Injection, Repository (for presistance abstraction), and UoW (for transaction abstraction).
So my answer is, you should learn about them in the first place to decide after if you want or no to follow the best practices. Even for simple project it's good to apply these patterns because often it gets bigger and bigger. and it's easy to do it in MVC so why to avoid it ?
There is many resources around to learn about. You can just google it.
I would like to answer this question in more generic way. Creating something which can be used in future is difficult than what it seems. All the pattern above can provide you infrastructure pieces to come up with some base framework.
But I would strongly suggest you to look at S.O.L.I.D principals (DI being part of it) to understand some qualities of good code. These are applicable irrespective of the technology involved.
You cannot predict the future requirement of a product\framework, but following these principle you can be better prepare to handle any future modification to the software
You might want to check out S#arp Lite which has many good examples of how to implement the things you want and can serve as a very good base on which to build something quickly.
None of the mentioned patterns are mutually exclusive. You should use the patterns that make sense based on what you are trying to accomplish, not attempt to shoehorn your application design into someone elses idea of how it should work. Sometimes trying to bend your scenario to fit a particular design pattern / practice is the worst thing you can do.
Want to make sure good unit test coverage / do TDD / ensure loose coupling? Then Dependency injection is your friend, as is the Unit of Work pattern. This is definitely a good idea for creating a maintainable, scalable application, but you can go too far with it for a small-scale application.
Need a centralized caching strategy for your data source? Then use the repository pattern. Or an ORM like NHibernate, which might do it for you.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've pretty much worked with Classic ASP for ever since it was released almost.. But i am having trouble adapting to the ASP.NET platform.
I have been suggested by many to move to PHP, since it's spaghetti code (I LIKE SPAGHETTI CODE), and it's just like classic asp.. But learning Apache servers and securing them i heard was another big project to learn by yourself.. And since i know more about MS servers, i prefer to stay with MS.
But, I really want to learn another platform, and i was looking at MVC framework and that MVC 1, 2 or 3 is like spaghetti code? Maybe i'm wrong. I assume MVC3 is the best now?
Anyway, From Classic ASP, which would be the easiest and most difficult to grasp you think? ASP.NET with all the compiling and using visual studio, reminds me of when i used to make apps in Visual Basic, but i really like spaghetti code more than compiling stuff..
If there is anyone who has done this switch over from classic asp before, what did you do and why, how easy was it to grasp the new platform? (Preferrably MVC)
Well, MVC is more like classic asp than webforms is. However, it uses structure and frameworks to reduce spaghetti code and make it more maintainable. You have to apply a lot of new concepts to not fight the framework.
For example, a strong seperation of view, model, and controller. This is not something you would do in classic asp, or even generic php (you can do mvc in php, but it requires more discipline and using frameworks as well).
Bottom line is, spaghetti will always bite you in the long run.
Asp.net supports a mode where you don't have to compile anything, you just edit the files on the server and it compiles them at runtime automatically. This is the so called "Web site" model. However, MVC does not work that way and requires the "Web application" model that does compiling (although you only have to compile code, not markup).
I'm currently smack in the middle of my first large ASP.NET MVC project after (and while still) programming in classic ASP for years. I have also programmed in ColdFusion and I have tried Python as an alternative to ASP.NET MVC.
If you want to stick to Microsoft technology MVC is the closest you will come to classic ASP. Webforms is really Microsofts way to make web-applications similar to application development. Microsoft has tried to abstract away the fact that the web is a stateless medium. However, this results in pretty ugly things such as the viewstate (a hidden form field that tries to keep the state of all form fields) and controls that generate HTML over which you have absolutely no control.
MVC gives you more control, and leaves you to handle the statelessness like classic ASP does.
I have still found there is a steep learning curve though; you will have to learn a lot of new things, if all you ever did was program vbscript/ASP:
C# or VB.Net Syntax
Object oriented programming in general (inheritance, dynamic versus static, etc.)
Concepts such as lambda expressions, delegates etc.
The MVC pattern
Most likely also a data-access technology like LINQ or Entity Framework
I'm still struggling with some of these, but I'm getting there. It does take a lot of work though, and perseverance. Not everything is better or easier than in classic ASP. Especially for me, as I have been using WSC's in classic ASP for years, which enables n-tier applications in classic ASP, and eliminates spaghetti code completely.
As I mentioned, I also looked into Python as an alternative; Although at the company I work for we now switched to ASP.NET MVC, I actually found the transition to Python a lot easier. The only reason we went with MVC is the fact that it seemed easier to get new developers when using C#/MVC. (In retrospect this wasn't actually true, we are having an incredible hard time finding a suitable C# programmer around where we are located)
Mind you, in Python you will still have to learn basic Object Oriented programming, but the implementation is much simpler to use than .NETs and the Python language is (IMHO) more like vbscript than VB.NET is.
Also I liked the fact that I don't have to define the type of every variable/function/parameter. This sometimes drives me crazy in C#; if the type of a function changes, it could affect a lot of other functions and variables, which all have to be changed. Also, the syntax is easier to pick up because the language is simple and there aren't a hundred ways to do the same thing.
You can choose between different frameworks, MVC or non-MVC and you can use Python in a lot of other fields as well (application programming, scripting-for example XBMC).
There are also ORM solutions available like Entity Framework for .NET and I found the one I looked into (SQLalchemy) a lot more powerful, and easier to pick up than EF.
So at work I'm currently learning ASP.NET MVC, at home I'm slowly picking up Python. I suggest you try a very simple project in different technologies, and pick the one you find easiest to get started with.
Hope this helps.
If you like your spaghetti served by Microsoft, try any Windows version that supports IIS7. PHP works perfectly and it's really easy to setup with Web Platform Installer.
With that in mind, there is no real reason you should choose any one web technology over the other. You can mix and match as needed, even within a single app.
If you want to get into MVC, forget about 1 and 2 and go straight to 3. MVC is much closer to the metal than ASP.NET WebForms. With your background in classic ASP, you'll probably like it once you get the hang of it.
Update:
If you're serious about learning either MVC, PHP, Ruby or whatever web platform you like. Get a good book. Sit down, read it and follow along with the sample code. I usually decide what book to buy based on the reviews at amazon.
Then, if you need more info on specific topics, go read authorative blogs on the subject. For ASP.NET MVC you'll probably want to look at blogs from Brad Wilsons and Phil Haack.
I started using Classic ASP back in the days but then moved to WebForms now using/learning MVC 4.
Here are my thoughts.
For me Classic ASP was fun and easy to learn as it was simple and did not have a large learning curve, data CRUDS were not difficult either and it did the job in a fairly efficient but messy manner.
WebForms required a higher learning curve but helped with a lot of 'plumbing' code with drag and drop controls, however these were sometimes difficult to modify and customise.
With MVC I have found it requires a larger learning curve than the other two, this is mainly due to it being driven by HTML5 and client frameworks like Knockout etc. To gain a good understanding also requires one to learn OO patterns, Entity Framework, LINQ, WebApi and initially these I did not find simple to digest.
What is easy for you? What part do you find difficult? Read up about a stateless nature of HTTP and find comparisons between web forms and MVC - this should make few things clear.
Do some reading about MVC pattern in general. MVC is a general term which appeared first time over 30 years ago. MVC in .NET 4 is a variation of this pattern, but we are all used to calling it MVC. Make sure you OO knowledge is up to scratch, as well as knowledge of basic design patterns, mainly SoC (Seperation of Concerns) and SRP (Single Responsibility Principle).
if you want to learn / start with the mvc framework I could recommend you do the Contoso University tutorial or the NerdDinner one ( http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials#NerdDinner )
What to choose for the foundation of a new webshop project? I have narrowed down my options into using ASP.NET MVC, so that is a must. That leaves me with:
Rob Conery's Kona (not being updated anymore but all in all seems a good foundation, though with a huge amount of features)
MVC MusicStore by Jon Galloway (very simple, in fact it could be easier to start from scratch and take in consideration all the special details we need)
Start from scratch
Anything else?
I've worked with the MVC for the last year so I could start from scratch and have the basic functionality developed in no time but I like Rob's extended functionality he added.
It is just that I am unsure how difficult it is to tailor Kona to our individual needs - anyone tried it yet? For instance, use EF instead of NHibernate?
To be honest, half the fun with Rob Conerys series was being "there" during the process he went through and the trials and tribulations he encountered. If you already have a foundation of using MVC for a year i'm not sure if there'd be too much more to take from it.
The most fundamental thing about the MVC pattern and the .NET tools that come into their own with using it (extension methods baby!), is that there are so many ways of solving the problem, some good, some better and occasionally some that make you go BAZINGA!.
If you have the time, i'd highly recommend just hacking away and see what you come up with.
After you've got a working prototype it's always good to then compare to what else is out there, for example with something like this post
You could also consider using Rob's new starter site: "Tekpub MVC 2.0 Starter Site". It's inspired loosely on his experiences with Rails, and has a bunch of nice utilities built in from the get-go. It's built as a result of his MVC 2.0 course on TekPub, which he recorded with Steven Sanderson.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Today I had a nice opportunity from my manager to propose new technologies to start up a new project. Here we used to use ASP.NET and SQL mainly. I really wanna propose using ASP.NET MVC and LINQ To SQL and do some nice TDD. The question is, i don't know how to convince my manager, actually i'm not sure of these choices myself. Could you please be me and propose the set of new technologies that you think is the best, and also propose some resources in case the developers don't know about these technologies, and any thing else that we might wanna consider during that transition.
PS: The project is a web site, and uses Amazon Web Services a lot, the good thing is, it's an internal project and time is not that much of a constraint.
Waiting for you sweet SO fellows.
The obvious, if not immediately helpful answer is to go learn about any technologies before you recommend them to anyone. If you are not convinced then go pick up one of the bits of kit and try to make it do something.
.Net MVC, Ruby on Rails and a raft of other platforms exist, pick 3 and try the same project in each. That way you'll soon have an idea of which you think is the strongest and convincing you manager will become a simple case of "Technology X is better because it will take us less time to build a more stable product which will save you money".
I had the same situation recently too.
Combo i use:
ASP.NET MVC
Cause i`m tired of webForms. And mvc is supposed to be faster in general.
StructureMap IoC
Cause i want app to be loosely coupled, tried it first and it does the job good enough.
NHibernate
Cause it fits DDD best despite of lack of sproc support.
RhinoMocks
For now - it just sits in my tool belt waiting for it's turn.
AutoMapper
Not needed anymore cause of NHibernate mapping capabilities.
MsTest framework
Still haven't seen any good argument for switching to another.
JQuery
Cause i dislike MsAjax framework. It's too clumsy.
MVCContrib
Cause it makes ASP.NET MVC apps easier to write.
Fluent NHibernate
Cause it gives better approach to configure NHibernate.
Trying to follow TDD and DDD. Gradually rewriting old legacy application too.
So far - so good. :)
I think if you are going the MVC route, you should probably also consider learning JQuery too.
You could say that ASP.NET MVC and LINQ to SQL really boost productivity and are really easy to maintain. Also the logic get's separated so well that testing is a breeze.
Give SO as an example of how successful and scalable solutions in ASP.NET MVC with LINQ2SQL can be in those new technologies.
Do not dive into the pool before knowing the depth or you will hit your head on the pool floor. I understand its a internal project but before you pick any technology stack. I would do the following -
Understand the team strengths, I dont want my freshwater fish trying to swim the ocean.
Understand the domain bits as much as you can. Not all technology stacks solve a problem in the same way.
You say time is not an issue but time often is the driving force. Set a feasible timeline.
Prototype some bits of software.
I think you can narrow down to the technology stack you would want. My options would be -
ASP.net MVC + Entity Framework + jQuery + Silverlight (if RIA is a goal)
MonoRail + NHibernate/ActiveRecord + jQuery + Silverlight (if RIA is a goal)
Mix and match 1 and 2
If webforms is something you like or suits your team's skill set, why not ? There is lots coming our way in the new .net version.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
update: I know there is no one best way to do everything. Sorry for not saying that right off. In the context of the data-access tutorials, if you had to do the project he did in that tutorial, would you do what he did or would use use MVC, if you had to choose one of them?
Update: Is MVC the more appropriate way to program asp.net applications, instead of the tutorials found here:
http://www.asp.net/Learn/data-access/
Original:
I ask, because I initially learned about MVC with Java applications, then things like RoR, and Django. These other projects and companies spoke as if MVC had been around for a very long time, and from what I found out it had. Then Microsoft started putting MVC into the .net framework.
I ask because I don't know how to design things very well and thought I was doing well to emulate what's on the asp.net site with Scott Mitchell's tutorial. I thought that creating abstract layers in a BLL was the way to go until I found out about MVC and now asp.net's MVC.
I honestly don't know what the "right" way is to do things. I just create what I need, but I can't help feel like I am missing something.
Is MVC the correct way to start doing things in large projects, specifically I mean MVC and ASP.NET, but could just as well mean PHP and one of their MVC frameworks.
I'd like to settle on a standard way of doing things...for now anyway.
And, out of curiosity, why did Microsoft only now start doing MVC?
UPDATE: Is MVC better than the current tutorial set on asp.net?
I'm referring to the Scott Mitchell tutorials where he creates the BLL for abstraction. Or is that a linq question as well. I should have said that I understand the need for keeping logic and presentation separate but unsure the best way to do it. I was using the asp.net tutorials. It worked fine. Then I found out the rest of the world, as I saw it anyway, was using MVC. Then Microsoft started developing MVC, so to me the other method seems obsolete and the wrong way to do things.
No, it's not the only best way to do things.
MVC is just a design pattern. The goal of all design patterns is simplicity. So as long as it makes your design simpler, go with it. If it makes things more complex for your specific application, try a different approach.
Unfortunately, some people think if they see a pattern, they should use it. It's just not true. Design patterns don't inherently make your application better. They are not an end. They are a means to an end (which is simplicity). So you should use them only if they are worth it.
In my opinion, over-architecting things without a good reason is worse than writing code without any specific design.
EDIT: Regarding ASP.NET MVC: I have a negative personal bias toward ASP.NET Web forms. Before MVC, I did most of the dynamic aspects of advanced projects by writing custom handlers to have fine grained control over the HTML. Web Forms make Web development very easy but they have particularly a couple things that are good but sometimes are problematic. The first of which is ViewState and the second is complex WebControl architecture. Don't get me wrong. Those are signs of brilliance of ASP.NET. I haven't seen a single platform for Web development as easy as ASP.NET Web Forms and this is only because of great WebControl support which requires ViewState. However, in some projects, you want to have precise control on rendered HTML (specially when you have some client-side logic). You also want to make server side code maintainable in large projects. In those areas, ASP.NET MVC really shines. But I think ASP.NET Web Forms will remain a great technology where it's more applicable. After all, as I said regarding design patterns in general, you should carefully evaluate your design to see which one better fits your needs.
Specifically, about data access, MVC usually requires more code than Web Forms counterparts. For presenting tabular data (i.e where GridView is applicable), I think ASP.NET Web Forms is the easier way to accomplish things. However, most data driven Web apps are not just manipulating a table directly in a database. They have complex layout. StackOverflow is a great example of this. It is certainly data driven, but ASP.NET MVC better suits it.
There is no "right" way to do things without knowing what "things" are. MVC is a design pattern that solves a specific common problem - separation of presentational and domain logic. Every design pattern is a commonly accepted "good" solution to a specific problem.
Those solutions, combined with knowledge and experience are building blocks for a good design. The "right" way to do things is to study your problem domain, research on possible solutions and apply the set of solutions that work best to solve it. Making mistakes is a part of the process as well, so don't be afraid to experiment and then refactor with rigor until you reach the solution that serves you best.
MVC is the worst way to develop applications, except for all other ways that have been tried. :-)
Joking aside, MVC is one application design that encourages us not to write spaghetti code. It's a guideline that reminds us to keep business code separate from presentation code. This is very helpful as the application gets more complex.
There are other variations that achieve that same benefit, but are not strictly the same as MVC. Presentation-abstraction-control (PAC) is one example.
As for why Microsoft is so late in adopting MVC, I'm not surprised that they are. They are pretty well-known (at least in recent years) for being conservative instead of innovative. They prefer to let other smaller companies take the risks in an unproven market, then they learn from the mistakes, churn out an overengineered competitor solution, and dominate through marketing.
Example: Microsoft Internet Explorer was considered to be a latecomer to the browser market. Netscape had become very popular, leading the way in providing a platform for people to view HTML. Once the amount of HTML content on the Internet was at a useful level, Microsoft belched up their onomatopoeic "IE" product and quickly captured an overwhelming market share.
MVC is just one way of doing things. I like it because it helps to promote extensibility and is structured to allow testing and code reuse. There is no silver bullet, one true way to do everything but I use it quite often.
In regard to Microsoft, I would say that they adopted the pattern as an alternative to WebForms development for the reasons I mentioned above. I would recommend looking at Rob Conery's MVC Storefront and kind of play around with the examples to see how it works for you.
There is no "best" way to code things. It depends on the application in question; sometimes MVC is the right choice, and sometimes it's not. A good developer is able to weigh his/her options and choose the one that's best suited for a task at hand, instead of just going with the method du jour
If MVC solves the Primary Technical Imperative of managing complexity in your application then it may be a good solution, but it is by no means the only solution.
MVC is one of any number of design patterns. Whether it's the best technologically, or the simplest, or for what types of projects it's appropriate, are are all arguable (see other SO threads). In any case, few would argue against the prevailing consensus that for most cases, it's "Good Enough".
But it has the undeniable benefit that a lot of people use it, on a lot of different platforms.
So if you want to use a methodology that is likely to be around a while; or you don't want to depend on one vendor for support and extension and refinement; or you work in a group that would like to grow by hiring people from various backgrounds who will grok a shared methodology quickly; or you would like to maximize your opportunities to move on if you need to, then MVC is one of the very best ways to support those goals.
MVC being "Better" or "Worse" pattern is relative to the project.