Todd McKinney - bLog

MS Field Reporting (MCS)

Logical splits across tiers

Sam Gentile posted an entry to his blog that really has me thinking. I understand his position to be that most of the books, blogs, docs, etc... on .NET have developers creating client/server applications, and that the Java community truly “thinks enterprise“ from the beginning while many of us just want to get the latest server control that we can drop on a page. As a case in point, he highlights the fact that many of the architecture articles on MSDN are rated pretty low, meaning that Visual Studio developers on the whole don't care much about architectural topics.

I'm not trying to criticize Sam, he may well have an excellent point. For me, however, this is kind of a big surprise. I honestly haven't run into many developers recently who don't logically separate an application into at least three logical tiers, often more. This may just be a result of the fact that I mostly work with enterprise developers and architects that naturally have a predisposition to design in separate logical tiers. So, I'm really curious, do most developers just know that we need to be splitting our business logic out from the UI, or is this a surprise? Have most of you at least looked at the UIP app block, and do you know why you would want to use it?

There are a couple of other interesting bits that Sam has got me thinking about, and I'm considering blogging about:

1. When, and why, would you want to use Enterprise Services in an application architecture, and

2. Even if you do logically design separate tiers for UI and business logic, when the application is deployed it may or may not live on the same physical tier. Most often, we write code that optimizes the application to perform on the targeted physical configuration. How do we make the tradeoff around whether or not to optimize the design?

If you think either or both of these things are worthwhile discussion topics, just let me know. Of course, if you think I'm completely off my rocker, let me know that also. If nobody likes talking about this stuff, maybe I'll try my hand at drawing cartoons like Rory does :)

Published Friday, February 20, 2004 9:07 AM by ToddMcK

Comments

 

DonXML Demsak said:

Keep up the discussions! I agree with Sam, there are lots and lots of developers out there that don't care about architecture. This impression comes from years of doing User Group work. That's part of the reason why VB was so popular, anyone (well almost anyone) could code, and did. Lots of those same folks are still coding, not looking to improve their knowledge base, and do .Net developement the same way they did VB development. That is why it is so important to get application blocks out to the masses, so they don't have to think (much) about all the complexities of architecture, and just clone and go (well for the most part).

Don
February 20, 2004 10:04 AM
 

Sam Gentile said:

As my good friend DonXML says, my experience has been a great many .NET developers don't care or know about architecture. I do plan to revise my topic quite a bit though and clarify things I was trying to say. You may want to check out all the ES posts I and Robert Hurlbut are doing already as we live in this stuff every day.
February 20, 2004 10:31 AM
 

Udi Dahan - The Software Simplist said:

I find the use of automatic transactions to be a very important plus for the use of ES. If you've ever had to do manual transaction management ( passing around transaction objects between BL objects ), you'll quickly see the benefit.

When you tie automatic transactions together with SOA ( at least the "Ripping Sh!t Apart" aspect of SOA as stated on my blog ) it greatly simplifies the system. I've promised DevX to write an article on this, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

IMHO, automatic transactions are enough of a reason to start using ES, even without understanding all of the more intricate details of it. Note that this is most pertinent for large-scale/enterprise development systems. "Drag and drop a table from the server explorer on a webform" type systems will probably benefit less.
February 20, 2004 2:23 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

© 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use  |  Trademarks  |  Privacy Statement
Microsoft
Page view tracker