I've read a lot on this topic, but cannot find out a clear answer on how to structure a complex project around symfony2...
My new project will be structured with :
1) one back office website hosted on a subdomain of our partner's website
2) one partner's website
3) one (or more) customer's website
Of course, each of these websites will share logics from "core" bundles (i.e : core entities, core user logic, etc...), but they also need to have custom routing, custom templates, and so on...
I think that I have 2 options :
1) define 1 bundle per website and define routing based on the hostname, but it seems that it is not recommended
2) implement one SF2 instance by website, and copy/deploy core bundles into each instances
What is the best solution ? And is there another solution on how to implement some kind of complex project?
It's difficult to say which is best for your particular situation: I've used both approaches for projects. I actually have one project which uses both approaches simultaneously, consisting of two Symfony applications: One generating the main website, the other generating a separate application containing some other functionality, with separate bundles for the "user" functionality and the "admin" functionality. We used Varnish to dispatch requests to the correct application, based on the URL path.
In my experience I've found that having multiple applications adds a degree of complexity to the overall solution. This makes it more complicated to work with and to hold the "big picture" of the whole system in your head. There's also potentially a cost implication, if you want to run your applications on separate servers. You also need to consider that there's overhead on getting the whole solution set up for local development, which is definitely a concern if you're in a team of more than one.
The flip-side of this is that working on one part of the whole solution (i.e. one app) is often more straightforward: Configuration values/dependencies for the other applications won't need to be set up, you only need to get working the bare minimum for that one standalone app. This approach also affords you a lot of flexibility and the ability to concentrate changes on one particular area of the solution. For example: If you wanted to make some changes to the partner's website, if that was generated by a completely separate application, it becomes straightforward to do this. You know that there won't be knock-on effects to your other applications. This goes for shared code too, providing you version it correctly: With composer, your separate applications can depend on different versions of your shared bundles/libraries if necessary. Another benefit of having separate applications is the ability to scale them independently of each other. If your customer website gets much more traffic than your partner's site, you can set it up on better hardware/virtualised instances, giving you finer grained control over performance/costs.
Sharing code is relatively straightforward with Composer and is not one of the main concerns here, in my opinion: Think carefully about the above factors when making your decision.
Related
I may be searching on the wrong keywords, but I'm having a hard time finding a suitable solution for the following case. We have an internal application that has five separate business areas within the application. In the past, this has all been set-up inside a web site project, and we've piece meal deployed changes to this environment. We've always had issues with one change bringing down the entire site.
In order to mitigate this while also bringing easier ways to unit test and potentially get into continuous integration use cases, I would love to have a structure where all the transactions for particular business areas (domains) stay within their own separate project. The architecture may look something like:
Main Project (Houses authentication, base master page, styles)
Ordering (Houses all things ordering)
Models/Views/Controllers
Pricing (Houses all things pricing)
Models/Views/Controllers
My question is how do I incorporate all this and give myself the ability to deploy each project separately at any time I'd like. So, for instance, I make updates to the Ordering domain, compile it, then upload the project without affecting the other domains.
Obvious other questions revolve around routing. How do I get the route correct? I'm assuming there are ways within the RouteConfig to set namespacing? What's the solution for this?
Is this what MEF does?
Have a look at Areas:
The MVC pattern separates the model (data) logic of an application
from its presentation logic and business logic. In ASP.NET MVC, this
logical separation is also implemented physically in the project
structure, where controllers and views are kept in folders that use
naming conventions to define relationships. This structure supports
the needs of most Web applications.
However, some applications can have a large number of controllers, and
each controller can be associated with several views. For these types
of applications, the default ASP.NET MVC project structure can become
unwieldy.
To accommodate large projects, ASP.NET MVC lets you partition Web
applications into smaller units that are referred to as areas. Areas
provide a way to separate a large MVC Web application into smaller
functional groupings. An area is effectively an MVC structure inside
an application. An application could contain several MVC structures
(areas).
(from MSDN, linked above)
Which would give you the logical separation, but not the functional.
To deploy Ordering without potentially taking down Pricing, the easiest thing to do would be to have separate web applications (which can be hosted within a single site if that's a requirement) for each. You can extract any shared logic to a class library project and reference that in both front ends.
I'm looking for best practices and good ideas rather than a proper solution.
scenario: I work in a web agency and thus we are plenty of websites from several customers. They're built upon a cms we made, so websites are quite identical for the 90% of code. However, remaining 10% struggles me and my team as it involves not only the presentation layer but behavioral logics too (ex: a website1 requires simply user/pass registration while website2 needs more data, facebook connector, etc. But this is a very easy example).
Making ad hoc development for our customers is becoming painful as keep each version aligned is getting really hard for us
What I really dream to have is an extendible website that works by itself, but in which I can override a part. This behavior should sound like "look for the specific part, if it doesn't exists get the base one". The parts could be a method, a class, a page, a control, a static file.
example:
Suppose I want website2 to have an own login component, let's so imagine that we have a situation like:
/website_base
|_ login.aspx
/website1
/website2
|_ login.aspx
So, if I ask for www.website1.com I'll get /website_base/login.aspx, but if I ask for www.website2.com I'll get /website2/login.aspx
Any idea?
Thanks
PS: we work with asp.net 3.5 framework.
There are couple of ways to achieve this.
Approach 1:
1. Split the common functionality in modules and create a pluggable structure. (like DotNetNuke) Obviously this will be more time consuming initially but over the period of time it can make itself like a product.
Approach 2:
Firstly - I would create separate solution for each client for better maintainability. This will save me a lot of hassle while maintaining the source control and when one client comes back with issues and we have multiple releases for a single client.
Secondly - From my core solution, I will identify most commonly used artifacts for each layers and move them to a core assembly.
a. For example – In UI you can use themes to give different looks for each client. Have a default master page which comes with the core site structure. All client specific details like Logo, name, contact details etc… can be configured using some DB fields.
b. In Business Layer and Data Access Layer – core functionalities like Membership, Logging, CMS related Entities etc I would have as a dll
i. I will derive my client specific logic from these core classes.
Last but not the least – how you deploy your code and how your IIS VD structure looks like… I believe it will be totally dependent on how the solution is packaged.. I would create a deployment package for each client which will give them the ability to deploy it to any server wherever they want until you have specific issues about proprietary software hosting.
Look into ASP.NET MVC. It is much more extensible than Web Forms, can be integrated into your existing Web Forms application, and it is very easy to build reusable custom components like what you are describing.
Otherwise, I would suggest looking into WebParts and developing reusable custom server controls for the components that you need. This way you can encapsulate the complex functionality within a single UI control without having to write repetitive code. WebParts are also compatible with Personalization, which you can leverage to manage the variance between which sites use which controls.
I definitely recommend MVC as the way to go for building extensible .NET web applications, but learning a new technology always incurs a cost in the time it takes to understand the new paradigm. I hope this helps you.
I found a smart solution here: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/ASP2UserControlLibrary.aspx
Check it out
I am trying to think about a web application development framework for our product development. I want to build an ASP.NET application which has many sub-modules in it. My requirements are like:
The application will be a suite of different modules like CRM, Bugtracker, Inventory management, Finance management etc.
Each Module should have their own DLLs.
One project should be for the external container of the application (like the framework) and this project should bring all other modules (of type web application) in the solution to the external container. (Some thing like we have Frames in HTML). So we will publish the external container web application only at the end of the day and all other web application projects will be accessed via that.
I would like to have separate DLL for each module so I don't need to fear about the application breaking when I am deploying my single DLL which controls the entire suite.
I am not sure whether my thoughts are in the right direction. The end result I am looking for is a well-maintained, organized, and modular web application suite.
It is ASP.NET web forms, not MVC. I will use VS2010 for development.
What are the best approaches to do this?
Edit:
The term external container means it acts like a master page which has links to various modules and the various modules are not always in the same project. They can be separate project under the same solution. And I am under the impression that, by the end of the day, I will publish that project only and it will bring the various modules to it.
I actually think the best approach would be one that does not over-architect. I'm concerned that it seems you are producing an overall architecture without sufficient reason.
Are these all new modules? Then just start writing the first one. Use best practices that apply to single modules.
Then write the second one. You'll find you want to use things you already wrote in the first module. Great. That's what refactoring is for. Refactor these things out into one or more "library" projects, re-run all your unit tests, then proceed with the second module.
Repeat until all modules are done.
At the end of this process, if you needed the kind of architecture you've outlined, then you'll have it. If you needed less, then you'll have less, and you will not have spent time creating an architecture which is not tied to real-world requirements.
I'm not going to say this is a "best approach" but I would recommend looking over Dot Net Nuke (DNN) to get some ideas. This started as the old "I Buy Spy" starter web project that Microsoft distributed to show ASP.NET projects, and it took off from there.
edit:
1.The application will be a suite of different modules like CRM, Bugtracker, Inventory management, Finance management etc.
You can do this with DNN. They're also called "modules" in DNN and Drupal.
2.Each Module should have their own DLL's.
Yes, this is a good idea. And you'll see this sort of thing in several content management systems like DNN and Drupal. This way not all implementations of the same website need to have all modules installed.
We have a significant website that is used to host a "service as a solution" application that we charge for (if you aren't an actuary or accountant you won't have heard of it). The lead developer for the past couple years used an earlier version of DotNetNuke as a model for how to refactor the parts of the application that he was allowed to change.
Like others have suggested DNN would probably work for what you're trying to do. If you want to completely roll your own naturally I would turn to some sort of combination of a container "Framework" and a bunch of user controls (.ascx). The container could be as simple as a master page with a menu. Depending on how flexible you want your design you can prefabricate many different pages, each hosting a different control (separate dll as you wish). If you want it to be a little more dynamic you can have one content page that will dynamically load at runtime the desired user control into it. Again this is just a general approach, probably a 30000 feet view into how DNN is implemented anyway.
Name the main project after your company/product and keep it short and simple. You will probably need one or two library projects to support it - these will contain everyday, common logic for such things as error reporting, Web utility methods, etc.
Next, pick one of your intended sub-projects (I don't like the term module in this particular context) and add that to your solution. Whether you are reusing an existing project, or preferably starting from scratch, you will eventually have any common logic in this project moved out to your libraries.
Rinse and repeat. Perhaps take a look at something similar like the Sueetie project which includes several sub-projects like CMS, Blog, Calendar, Forum, etc.
The following article is marked as "outdated" on MSDN but I still think you should take a look at it:
Structuring Solutions and Projects
Also, something similar from the Patterns and Practices Group:
Structuring Projects and Solutions in Team Foundation Source Control
For our company I'm creating a big Extranet website which will feature a set of sub-applications. I'm a bit puzzled by what should be the right setup of the solution and projects.
I have one web application that we call the Portal. It contains the authentication/authorization classes, masterpages, navigation/url routing classes and theme definitions. It will also contain some basic overviews for our customers to get a quick idea of their project status.
In the coming year we are going to develop and integrate more applications with the portal. Think of it as detailed overviews and tools called Feature A, B and C. Over the years we will improve these applications and release new versions. These web applications should fit into the navigation of the Portal seamlessly. I'd like them to reuse the masterpages and themes.
What is the proper way to setup this solution?
How can I tie the applications together, re-use the master pages and keep it maintainable?
How can I share certain webcontrols (ASCX) in a proper way?
We are using TFS, perhaps any branching/merging ideas?
Edit:
I'd like to create it in ASP.Net WebForms, we have the most experience in that area. But basically we can use anything, we've got the webserver under our own control (as long as it is Microsoft oriented, not switching to php or something like that :))
What is the proper way to setup this solution?
The proper way... There are so many. I have seen a lot of applications, and a lot of different setups (a lot of which that I would deem "proper"). What you're really asking is for the best way for your situation.
Because you're building a portal, you'll have the luxury of feature separation which will help you as you develop additional features for your application.
I would setup a single website with a separate folder for each feature. Making it a single website will allow all features to share the same masterpages, usercontrols, and configuration file - without having to do anything special. (On that note, I would put all your master pages in a folder by themselves, and create another folder for your usercontrols).
How can I tie the applications together, re-use the master pages and keep it maintainable?
Again... folders are the best option here. Folders will help separate each feature, making the application easy to manage.
How can I share certain webcontrols (ASCX) in a proper way?
First of all, ascx files are not webcontrols. They are usercontrols. WebControl is a class for creating server controls that reside in a separate assembly. Regarding usercontrols, as I said above, if you put them in a separate folder, they're always in one place and available throughout the application.
We are using TFS, perhaps any branching/merging ideas?
There really isn't anything special you need to do here. There are a lot of different paths you can take regarding branching:
One is to create a branch for every release.
Another is to create a branch for every new feature you add (in your case, this is pretty much the same as the first option).
Yet another is to create a branch for each developer.
When I decide how I am going to branch my code, I think about what will protect me the most. In your case, you need to plan for bug fixes in between feature releases so maybe one branch after each release makes the most sense (call it your dev branch). Given the separation of features, though, one feature may not effect the rest of the application. You may not need this kind of branching to be safe.
As Brian says when making an API public you should commit to it as much as possible, which means it should change as little as possible after the initial release. However to make something that stable requires lots of effort up front so if you aren't ready to commit to the API you should instead internalize it as much as possible and for that reason you might want to combine things more than separating them.
However, I'm not going to suggest an architecture that fits your application based on a 5 paragraph description. What you need to do is to weight pros and cons of having a few big projects vs. having a bunch of loosely coupled small projects. I mean, the more planning you do up front, the easier you will have it down the line, provided you stick with the plan.
So contrary to Brians answer, I wouldn't recommend you make your entire system "as loosly coupled as possible", only that you make it as loosly coupled as it needs to be. ;) Loosely coupled code can cause as much trouble as tightly coupled code, if you are abusing it.
See:
1. What is better, many small assemblies, or one big assembly?
2. Specific down-sides to many-‘small’-assemblies?
In the end, only you know how much you want to focus on each of the "...bilities", maintainability, extensibility, reliability etc. So get your priorities and goals straight and plan accordingly.
Regarding branching strategies you could read the TFS Branching Guideline 2.0 which have a good introduction to various branching strategies ranging from basic to advanced. Even if you don't use TFS this is a good guide to read (I use SVN at the moment). Since I currently work in small teams with 1-4 devs, I tend to use a strategy that is between basic and standard. Not that I'm recommending this for you, but that whats works best for our team.
As for sharing code between projects. In SVN we can use "externals" which means that the shared file will appear in several folders so when you change one copy and commit the change to svn, all the other copies will be updated on the next svn update. However, I can't remember if TFS have something similar.
Note: Beware of externals in SVN... they can cause... problems. ;)
My advice is to try to avoid sharing aspx, ascx and master pages as much as possible. It usually hurts a lot more than it helps. Instead try to use inheritance or other alternatives to achieve your goal.
ASP.NET MVC 2.0 has a concept called "Areas" where you build subsections of an application in isolation from the rest. As far as I know these areas can be maintained in separate projects from the "main" application. It sounds a lot like what you are requesting so maybe you should look into that.
Hope it makes sense. ;)
I would look at making your system as loosely coupled as possible. As/when you add more applications, your website will become less and less reliable (since no component will be up 100% of the time, combining these will reduce your overall reliability). So you should build your system to cater for the non-major services being down (I believe the Amazon homepage, for example, has 100-ish services contributing to it, and as such it's built to be fault-tolerant)
Your APIs between services should remain as stable as possible, such that the implementations can change without breaking the coupling. You should also investigate automated testing of this at the web level (perhaps Selenium or similar?) since testing the individual services will give you little coverage re the overall behaviour.
You might find it useful to look at implementing a custom VirtualPathProvider. On my last project we had multiple ASP.NET sites which needed to share theme files (master pages, user controls, images, style sheets) so I created a VirtualPathProvider which allowed us to map a virtual folder (e.g. /Themes) to any physical folder on the hard drive (e.g. C:\Shared\SiteThemes).
It's not trivial but didn't take too long and hasn't caused any problems. Incidentally it turned out to be a great way to overcome the maximum component limit in WiX... Note that you can't precompile sites that use a VirtualPathProvider.
Use MVC Concepts from now. they give more extendability and flexibility for a robust applications.
You might look at using SharePoint. It's a pretty decent platform for ASP.NET application delivery, particularly if they coexist in an intranet environment; it gives you a lot of stuff for free.
Of course, it has very rough elbows, so to speak, so proceed with caution.
I wouldn't think of the applications as seperate but as modules of the overall portal.
I would recommend you look into MEF as this would seem to be a perfect fit.
http://blogs.msdn.com/hammett/archive/2009/04/23/mef-and-asp-net-mvc-sample.aspx
I'm building a project using mvc framework.
I'm at a point where i need to decide if I should separate frontend and backoffice to two mvc applications
This is to make my solution tidy and well structured. But at the same time I don't want to increase maintenance on the long run. Can you please share with me your experience on the long term when application becomes quite large, if it is better to have two seperate projects or just have a Backoffice folder under the main web project.
Another concern that I am realizing is how do I handle images between these two projects.. User uploads photos from backoffice to a folder that reside under backoffice application then how do I display these photos through frontend or vice versa..
Thanks
One way to think about this is to ask "Are the fundamental actions and desires of the users different". Then ask, "What's the scale of the back office site". The larger, the more likely I'd split it. If it was just a handful of admin pages or a couple reports, I'd live with it in the original project. In addition, "Do the front and back offices need to scale at different rates?" 1 million hits / hour vs 20 fulfillment staff to make numbers up out of no where. And thirdly, "Do the front and back office customers live in different security domains" Being able to deploy the back office code behind the firewall would make it a tocuh safer.
There is overhead for the developer, but sometimes that's okay if you get clarity, security, or simplicity.
A suggestion, assuming you want to split it, split into three projects: Two web front ends and a library that holds shared code and resources, like some basic database access code. Actually, three may be two few projects if you want to share helpers, etc.
I'm a huge fan of separating the apps as the advantages tend to outweigh the advantages in most cases. Ball points out a number of the big points, mainly revolving around the different use cases and security contexts. The other big kickers for me are:
a) You can get moving on the back office stuff while some of the front-end details are still up for discussion. IE--you are not blocked by marketing being all wishy/washy about what template and color scheme to use.
b) You can make different technology choices depending on app. EG, your back office could use traditional ASP.NET webforms because you are not concerned with SEO and other webby behavior as well as can guarantee what browsers and bandwidth capabilities you will have to deal with.
Overhead-wise, there really isn't too much additional work IMHO. And most of those problems are pretty solvable. For example, your images issue could be handled by either storing the images in a database or making a common file store that both apps could reference.