I am building a second Rails web-app from scratch. I am wonder what would be the best practice in terms of workflow:
start coding basic functionalities, then add GUI design and repeat,
or
create full set of wireframes for basic functionalities, then
design data and models, then code it up, then repeat
It seems to me that laying out wireframes forces me to think harder about how users will use the app, but choosing work-flow kinda depends on framework (support agile development or not).
What is your approach and what're pros and cons?
Thank you.
There's no "best"; it depends on what's actually happening.
You may know some basic functionality before beginning workflow design, but it's unlikely you'll know all of it. Either way, high-level behavioral tests are a good place to start defining functionality at both the UX and lower levels.
I'm not sure what you mean by "support agile development or not", that doesn't have anything to do with the framework. The framework shouldn't have an impact on workflow, either, only on how the workflow is implemented.
Related
I have a large rails application with 3 separate 'components'.
One is a mostly static WWW site, one is a shopping cart based on Spree, and one is a reward-program based on Instagram's API.
Currently they are all one giant Rails 4.0 application. As this app has grown over time, I have it harder to make distinctions between components. I want to modularize the app to keep these 3 components separate.
Is there a preferred way to do this "SOA" sort of architecture? or would it be better to turn each 'component' of the app into their own mountable engine? Or is there an even better strategy?
I have been looking at Spree's core, and how they have each component as an engine, and load them in the top level, and I'm thinking this may be the best route.
I don't have any experience with Ruby or Rails, but based on my experience you will need to ask/answer the below question and then decide how you want to proceed forward.
Who's going to be developing the code base and who'll be maintaining it?
If it's just you who's wearing all the hats, you may not want to have the overhead of implementing SOA (web-services to be specific). That said, you should definitely have a 'Contract' between each of these components or modules (however you refer to them). That way your modules/components can evolve independently and changes made to one to make the logic better doesn't necessarily mandate changes to the other components.
If it's you and a couple of other developers, I'd still say that you may not want to take the WS route yet.
If it's different teams that are developing and maintaining these components, then you are taking about an application at enterprise level and then you will start seeing the benefits of SOA (based on WS).
Cheers,
K
For the first time I'm creating a quite complex Rails app.
I'd like to know what's the best way to organize that app by folders. Until now, I'd do everything under one app (all the models, controllers, etC) but reading some open source code I realize that they put everything under different apps.
Like for example Spree Commerce. They have a general folder and inside that they have different apps (API, core, admin, etc). How is that done and is that the best way to do it?
I'd like to get pointed to the best way to do it (a book, blog, anything) so I can understand how I can architect my app for future maintenance.
thank you
As an aside I think the title of your question is a little confusing. Rails, by using convention over configuration, defines 'how to organise a Rails app'. I think your question is rather about how to architect your application as opposed to anything Rails-specific. Maybe tweak the title?
That aside, without knowing any more detail about your project it's a tricky question to answer, but I'll give it a go.
All applications should start off simple, if you believe (like I do) that you should start by building the simplest thing that could possibly work. Given this, since you're using Rails, then in all likelihood the simplest thing would be to structure your app as a vanilla Rails 3 application. This will probably (I say 'probably' because I don't know any specifics about the app) allow you to get a beta version of your app up and running pretty quickly without worrying about complexities which at this stage in the development of your project are not a problem.
If you need to create an XML or JSON-based API then Rails makes this really easy using the standard framework, which will allow you to spend more time thinking about the API design than how to code it, and it's the API design which is the most important thing to get right in the first instance.
Similarly, your Admin site can be part of the same app just in a different namespace. If you find later down the line that you want it as a separate app, you can do this (maybe you could use the awesome API you designed to facilitate this), but why bother designing it with this added complexity (and hence extended development time) in the first place if you don't have a good reason for doing so?
Once you have your app up and running and people are starting to use it, you start to get a picture of where the bottlenecks are and where the design could be improved. At this stage, if there's a need, you can start to move parts of the app to scalable solutions, such as running your API as a standalone service, introducing caching, changing data stores and other improvements and optimisations.
Even if your app is as wildly successful (and I hope it is!) then re-architecting your application whist continuing to run the existing service is still entirely possible, as Twitter have proved. Just stick to Knuth's statement and you'll be alright.
Regarding reading material, that's a tricky one. For me a lot of the XP and agile development classics taught me a huge amount about how to approach program and app design. I'd also check this StackOverflow topic for book inspiration.
Good luck!
Spree uses Rails' Railties (Rails::Engines). Railties are introduced in Rails 3 to make it more modular and easy to extend. Rails 3 itself is a collection of Railties (ActiveSupport, ActiveModel, ActiveRecord, etc.).
If you are developing a complex app I would suggest spending some time planing its' architecture. Designing a complex app without any initial planning would definitely end with a maintenance nightmare down the road. It also introduces a huge learning curve for the new team members, slow down your new feature introduction and of course, frustration.
Anyway, don't over optimize, but don't forget to design your architecture for your needs.
IMHO, I will create very complex projects as one app. I have reason to believe that Spree and Radiant build under seperate apps so that under the pretense of their open source communities, contributors can contribute code easily without tampering with the core data, and the core workings of the application.
Otherwise, you should be alright just building it as one app. Just keep it neat.
Here is what have kept me sane for several years of RoR development:
I use Rails Engines, but keep them in same codebase as the main app. Here is good starter for modular Rails app:
https://github.com/shageman/the_next_big_thing
Wherever I can I try to reduce coupling and use composition to make things easily testable, reusable and maintainable. This helps to eventually extract module or engine as separate gem. Composition is done by routes (mounting), directory overlaying (assets), dependency injection or configuration.
If I don't need to re-use an engine I put it in the same code base as the main app which is single deployment unit. Thanks to that I don't need to switch between projects in my IDE. While in development environment any changes to the engine code are instantly picked up by Rails reload mechanism.
I have just started looking into .net MVC and I really like it.
There are a few developers within our team who think the same. But before we are allowed to use it for any project we need to get the approval of management.
What would be the best way to convince management(which know little about programming) that this would worth while and it could have some cost benefit?
My belief is that it will force us to write better more accessible sites which are a lot more testable than web forms. Which in return would mean less bugs and higher customer satisfaction. But I have no evidence of this.
EDIT:
We have a team meeting in 4 days, this is where I will be making my pitch to the team and management.That gives me two weeks to learn more on MVC and do a presentation.
Ok, I'm a manager. I've been one for more than 10 years. Luckily, I've been able to stay very current with my technology passions, so I think I can speak from both sides of the fence.
Managers are going to be concerned with three things here: risk, cost, and the status quo. So, when you present your plan, you're going to need to address each of these:
Risk:
Explain to them that the risk here is very low.
MVC2 is just an extension of MVC, both of which has full source code available (management speak: if we find a problem, we don't need support. We can fix it ourselves).
There's a ton of community support. (management speak: I can go online and get answers to any questions I have in a matter of minutes).
Heavy-hitters at Microsoft are pushing this (management speak: Microsoft is encouraging their developers to use this technology).
Cost
Talk about the fact that the technology is free, with a ton of community support.
Be ready to talk about ramp-up costs for any developers that don't have MVC experience. They're going to be less productive at first. Let your manager know that the developers will come up to speed quickly, and that MVC provides more efficient coding approach than traditional web forms.
Be ready to talk about costs and risks associated with ongoing maintenance. If you've already got a ton of web forms out in the wild, this will present a second skillset that developers will need to maintain. Find ways to convince management that it will be possible to maintain this skillset.
Status Quo
Many people become managers because they want a level of security and control in their life. If this is the case with your manager, they'll be interested in maintaining a comfortable status quo, and not making significant changes. If that's true here, you need to make the case that this really isn't a major change from what's being done today. Assure them that you have a back-out strategy. Talk about how this is really a proof-of-concept for MVC use in your organization, and that management will have an opportunity to review the success of the project prior to you ever suggesting MVC become a standard.
Really what it comes down to is the fact that ASP.NET MVC forces developers to write better, more scalable, and easier to test code. It moves them away from the crapshoot that webforms often can be, and in a direction oriented toward quality architecture and good clean code that follows more rigid conventions.
One definite drawback of MVC is that the View structure required by the webforms view engine (default) encourages you to write spaghetti code in the views that is, at times, a nightmare to maintain. Given this fact, you might even want to pitch them with the new Razor View Engine that was recently announced. With it you can write some extremely clean view code that even the non-developers at your company could manipulate without bringing mass death and destruction to your application. Compared to the markup in the webforms view engine, Razor's markup is pretty much beautiful.
Also, check out this really solid blog post by my buddy Matt Hidinger which does a great job of breaking down why MVC is so awesome.
When you speak to management just be sure to emphasize the all good points mentioned so far, and then compare them to all the bad that webforms is/can be. Be practical and realistic; if you have enough people on your team that are ready to jump on board with MVC then it's pretty much the best possible decision you can make, in my opinion, anyway. You may even want to take a moment to show them some of the great sites that use it- like Stack Overflow.
Personally, I have launched about 15 separate sites built with ASP.NET MVC and as such I feel I have a pretty solid understanding of it. I can wholeheartedly tell you, from my experience, MVC is the best thing that ever happened to ASP.NET.
It really depends on what you're comparing it to, but assuming it's an alternative to webforms, a few items to mention:
better testability
more control over output, which can help target other devices
leverage existing knowledge of .net
MVC framework encourages you to write more structured, testable and, as a result, more maintainable code. As the biggest costs in development are in the debugging and maintenance, those benefits alone should be a good validation. That said, it's still possible to code crap in MVC and that shouldn't be overlooked. If your company has a lot of expertise in another development framework then you really need to address the deficiencies in that and how MVC can rectify those deficiencies.
I would start by looking up blog sites that support MVC and compiling some of the advantageous features of MVC. I would start with Scott Guthrie's initial blog post regarding MVC - it outlines some great features - http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/14/asp-net-mvc-framework.aspx
If you are looking at trying to bring MVC in and need to convince management of the value, your best approach is too show how it can reduce long term support costs. Having an application that has well developed unit tests with decent code coverage can ensure quality over the life cycle of the application because you can higher level of confidence that changes you introduce have not broken pieces of the application. This doesn't negate the need to test the application, but you will find breaking changes faster. An approach utilizing MVC over MVC is a much more flexible platform for this testing.
There are many studies you can utilize that show the long terms support/maintenance costs of an application are often greater than the initial development costs. Stephen McConnell's Code First has a good discussion of this.
Good luck!
As opposed to what? Management would rather you wrote poorly-designed code? I'm surprised it's even an issue, in that whatever else they're asking you to do, by the current state of the industry, is self-evidently the wrong decision. If they know what MVC is, I can't see how any reasonable person would want you not to use it.
Sell it as an ASP.NET component, only made by Microsoft to incorporate some of the newer web 2.0 technologies moving forward. Tell them it will enhance maintainability while reducing development time. Tell them it uses existing infrastructure, and is more performant. Tell them it uses existing investments in training and software. Tell them it is more efficient, and makes it easier to fix issues and build enhancements. Tell them they'll get more out of their development team without allocating more resources.
I would like to know which steps and which concepts do you follow when you're starting a web application from scratch.
When you're asked to develop a new web application and the only thing you're told is which features are wanted, how do you do ?
How and in which order do you conceive all the different layers in your application, from the database design to the UI design, without forgetting the back-end ...
Which tools do you use ? which rules do you follow ?
Thanks in advance.
I like to start with a story board. I use mock screens for the examples.
I find this article very resourceful.
Hope it helps :)
Structured process you must know to develope a web appplication
Any answer to this question is exceptionally subjective.
In regard to how and in what order, you can refer to these threads, which are clearly inconclusive:
Which is more important? DB design or coding?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/329160?sort=votes#sort-top
In regard to the tools, here is a thread:
What do you use for web development and why you think it rocks?
The rules you follow are partially tied to the tools you use, and partially tied to the design you choose. You should have a sense of the benefits and limitations of available frameworks and tools to do what you need done.
In designing the app, you can do as much pre-planning as you feel is necessary to understand the problem (i.e: story-boarding, ui mockups, entity relationship diagramming, functional specifications, etc.). The goal is to know what problems you are solving and what interactions you expect the user to enact on the application, and then use suitable technologies to achieve that goal - optimally in the most efficient and flexible manner possible.
Try to write a bit of a functional specification, just something simple to capture in writing the different functions that the app will have to handle. Once you have this done, you can sit down and work out what framework / language / platform / etc. best suits your needs. At this stage mockups will also help - try to find out exactly what screens you need and what information has to be on each screen - don't worry about the layout, just the necessary information. From there you can go on to coding up each of these screens - make sure that you only provide functionality that is in your design - there's no need to overcomplicate things just because you can.
What language, framework, and hosting considerations should one make before starting development of a scalable web application?
The most important consideration is not to over-engineer to the point that it gets in the way of building and launching something. Analysis paralysis is the single biggest inhibitor to productivity, progress and results.
Yes, do some planning. Pick a framework. Perfection in a framework will be impossible to find because it doesn't exist, partially because you don't know what you need until you build it anyways. Chances are, if you pick something, it will be better than picking nothing.
Yes, try to pick flexible, inter-operable tools for where you see yourself going.
Yes, look for a good built-in feature set where you see yourself going in the next 6-18 Months. Trying to look beyond that is not really realistic anyways as most projects change so much anyways going towards the first release.
So, pick what you're comfortable with or what is familiar. Don't follow the crowd, do what gets you the best results, quickest, and often. Understand that you might have to change in the future. So, whatever you build now, try to use unit testing so you can re-factor if ever needed.
If what you're building is going to be super successful, it will be a great problem to have, and an easy one to work on once it's making money as you'll be able to get other talent to help you.
Share what you end up picking and why for your situation -- it helps the us learn from you too!
Don't necessarily marry yourself to one language or framework. It may be that some parts of your site work better with different languages and frameworks than others. For example, all of 37signals' sites are based on Ruby on Rails, but they recently wrote a blog post about how the underlying technology of one is actually written in Erlang now because it's much easier to do concurrency that way.
Obviously there's a level of complexity where things turn into a mishmash, but using the right tool for the job — even if that means different tools for different jobs — can simplify things.
Firstly on language, it largely doesn't matter. PHP, Java and .Net being probably the biggest three are all proven in the sense that they run some of the largest sites on the Web so don't listen to anyone who tells you one is more suited than any of the others.
Some might also put Ruby and Django/Python in this list. I have nothing against them but I'm not aware of any big (say top 50) sites using either.
Hosting considerations depend on how low you want to start but basically the order is:
Shared;
Virtual Private Server;
Dedicated.
Scalability will largely be about your application's design than any language, framework or provider. Efficient database schema, efficient delivery and use of Javascript/CSS and in-memory caching are all issues common to any language or framework.
Language - I'd recommend something with good frameworks and good testing libraries like Perl or Java.
Framework - it depends on what do you plan to do. If you start with a hosting that does not allow FastCGI, it is best to avoid such frameworks like Catalyst or Rails. That's why I love CGI::Application (primarily Perl, but ported to other languages too) - it can run as CGI, FastCGI or mod_perl. For development it can be run from it's own web server.
Hosting - nothing is better than you own server. It can be your own server, leased server or virtual server. But you can start with cheapest hosting and when you need more, you should be able to afford it.
It depends.
Start by looking at your requirements (Functional or user defined) (Non Functional - aspects that describe your desired system link text)
Next I would clarify what it means to have a scalable web application. Define it as test cases that can be clearly tested (must support X page views / second with response time < Y seconds).
Once I had those pieces in place I would look at what type of skills my development team can support (for the intial project and on going maintenance). Then find some case studies of applications out in the wild that use similar language or framework. If someone else has made a specific language / framework scale then chances are good that you can too.
Finally go out and look for some hosting providers that support your chosen language, framework and requirements.