I'm building a mobile app that have many panels and I was wondering if it's a good idea (in regards of performance, memory use, code size and ease of maintainability) to have one Ractive instance by panel or if it's preferable to have only one Ractive instance for the whole application? I'm leaning towards many instances for ease of maintainability but I really don't know how it will affect performance and memory use.
The overhead for creating additional instances is very small - it's only really if you're creating hundreds or thousands of instances (whether directly, or as inline components) that you might find you need to optimise things.
So in general I'd advise writing the application in the way that's most maintainable. If you did find that performance was a problem, then depending on the nature of your app you might find a happy medium between having a single instance for the entire thing, and dividing it too finely.
Related
When we are creating separate classes means (tiers) will take more time to traverse between pages.Whether this is the case?
I know there is many advantages for using the tiered architecture.Like easy to maintain,easy to understand.
What is actual scenario ?
To answer your question, class will take performance hit as they will be destroyed by GC which in itself is a heavy operation.
Architecture is something which helps you achieve the business requirements with maximum capacity to scale. Now adding a tier in your application would definitely bring in a class, the object of which will be created and again after use, it will be destroyed by garbage collector. So there is a very thin line on what to use. You have to decide it according to your business and scalability.
Creating and destroying classes takes time, but in an OO language this is unavoidable.
As far as .NET is concerned it makes no difference, performance wise whether these classes are in the code behind files of ASP pages or in a separate library.
I've seen some teams that start breaking into multiple projects from the beginning and others build behemoth single projects. The large project teams say that one massive project is easier to maintain than multiple smaller projects.
In general, how many files is too many?
The answer as George suggested it depends...but you may have large project with many areas which are new feature with asp.net mvc 2.0 . The time when you do want to break it another project is when you are trying to reuse that in another project. Since you do not want something coupled that it needs quite a few changes to work.
So, you need to analyze and understand the reusability of your projects.Ideally you would not want to have one big project with everything...you can divide into libraries..helpers..Models..etc..But again depends on how and what are you implementing..and sometimes a one large project also works.
There is probably no right or wrong answer here, but from experience, some teams know that certain components logically belong in a separate project, therefor they break it down initially.
Some teams might find that because a project is unmaintainable in it's current form, decide to break it down logically into more manageable parts.
As developers, we should always be breaking down problems into more manageable and consumable bits of work. The concept applies to solutions/projects that grow to a size that is just not favorable.
Short and simple answer.
If it becomes to big and messy, break it down.
We don't worry so much about 'files in project', rather we subdivide by 'projects contain logically related function'. Our base libraries are divided by functional area (UI, data access, etc), then the app components by function - reporting, contract maintenance/info, various odd & sundry table maintenance things, deal maintenance/info, rights maintenance/info, etc. (some of the terminology is domain-specific)
Given our translated-from-client/server app is fairly large, we decided that logically related separation would provide a simpler maintenance scheme.
If all your projects are in one solution, there's not really much of a difference (until you get beyond 10 or so projects). If you only plan on having one app, keep it in a single project but separate by folders if you feel that is easier.
We typically separate our project by tiers ... i.e. a web tier project, model/business logic tier, and data access or OR/M tier. It makes it easier for us to manage and conceptually think about the various apps. It also helps prevent us from mixing together concerns (i.e. you probably wouldn't want your model accessing the System.Mvc namespace, but if everything is in one project it's easier for a developer to slip such 'features' in).
I would like to know the best practice for a designing a simple CRUD application with some screens updating various tables (like admin pages to maintain static data for an application). the simplest way would be to drag a data grid/gridview, bind it to a dataset and use a data adapter for CRUD operations. but if this application needs to be scalable, lets say to add any extra UI/business logic in future, then is there any design pattern that can help with this? should I be using an object data source control and bind it to business objects instead? or are there any better ways of doing it? should I build a complete layered application or will that be overengineering for this requirement? any examples for UI design would also be helpful. thanks.
If you are looking for a really quick and easy approach, you can look at using Dynamic Data
http://www.asp.net/dynamicdata
on top of a Linq2SQL or EF4 backend - hardly any code needed at all.
+1 Oded. No offence RKP but you might be confusing "simple" with with "effective" or "value-for-money". I also think you might want to be more clear about exactly what it is you're after: example UI designs is quite a different issue from the logical architecture. Anyway - good on you for asking.
If this is a "tactical" solution: not expected to have a long life-span, or is a quick-and-dirty dev tool then how you build it might not be such a big issue. (also beware that short-term tactical apps can end-ed being long-term strategic ones - were working on an app now that the business see as a "temporrary" tool: they see it only being used for the next 5-10 years (!)).
If it's a tool the "business users" will use, then it's quite likely they'll expect changes overtime: depending on what the app is for a simple pass-through CRUD app might only cut the mustard for a short while.
So I guess this is where your admirable desire to look at best practice comes in.
Are you familiar with OO design? A lot of the principles behind good OO design also apply at the architectural level (SOLID, Common Reuse, Common Closure, Loose Coupling, Stable Dependancies and Stable Abstraction Principles).
lets say to add any extra UI/business
logic in future
So - this is where you need to consider up-front how you will seperate concerns and allow for growth: architecture doesn't mean you have to do a big upfront design, it just means you need to have an idea of how you'll grow the application as requirements grow..
To finish:
Have a good look at the different system quality attributes and work out which ones are particularly relevant to the system. prioritise them.
I get a lot of mileage out of Dependency Inversion (The D in SOLID) - abstract out things like data access early on.
For me the other really key "best practice" is to pay attention to SRP (the S in SOLID),
http://www.asp.net/mvc is my bet. It's easy to start with and get going... You won't be dissapointed. :) StackOverflow itself is built on top of it.
I'm in the middle of creating a fairly large flex application, and over time, it's started to edge toward unmaintainability.
I'm using 3 external library projects which are still small enough to remain maintainable and reusable, but the main project seems to be impossible to keep organized.
Part of the problem seems to be that I have about 30 objects inheriting from a single abstract superclass type object. All of child objects have both a logic component and a ui component which are tightly integrated to each other. The superclass object has about 60 shared methods and properties, most of which can be overridden in any of the child classes, a few of which should be overridden in all child classes.
To add to the complexity, these have to communicate between themselves, and this is usually via the container object they reside in. Additionally, the main project has to create value objects out of these so they can be sent to a FlourineFX backend for storage, and additional authentication/authorization logic.
I've created much larger projects in languages from old MS BASIC (pre VB), Ada, VB (3 to .Net 1), C++, and C# without this problem. (well, old VB tended toward this problem because of the same tight integration between UI and logic) So, is there any thing I'm missing, or is there any best practices that I can implement? (even if that means rewriting entire swaths of code)
And yes, this may be an extension to this conversation.
Do you use any framework implementations in this project? A framework would help modularise a lot of this complexity and hopefully remove a lot of the dependencies you seem to have between the application logic and views.
I'm a massive advocate of the RobotLegs framework which implements the mvcs pattern and offers dependency injection for use throughout your project. There are others out there such as pureMvc, Cairngorm, Mate. Have a look around and see which best suits your project.
It sounds to me like you really need to do a big refactor which is a risky process in such a large project. It could be well worth it if you're struggling to maintain it. If you are going to refactor definitely refactor into a framework. It's probably the area that will give you most bang for your buck (pound for the brits ;) )
James Hay's conversation starter is a good one, but for HUGE applications I would take time to test and consider memory management for some of the suggestions in that answer/conversation. RobotLegs is great and all, but I would worry about 'over-singletonization' and potential memory management issues that it would create (though I have to admit that I've never used and avoided robotLegs because of it's use of singletons).
If you were thinking IoC and dependency injection (like that which robotLegs provides), I'd suggest a look at swiz -- I really like the new 'instance-direction' swiz has taken. My only issue with it (in the current beta) is they have some cleanup issues, though these issues are easy enough to remedy (look through their source and any time you completely remove a component from the stage you'll have to play the profiling game and make sure everything is getting cleaned up --- we had to create temp functions to remove the changewatchers and destroy 'display list bean instances' until they get that stuff fixed).
The project I lead had many of the potential issues you must be worried about. Our ERP app has thousands of modules and the thing is running on client machines for hours/days at a time, constantly loading and unloading modules. Garbage collection and memory management were and is THE issues.
As for using mate, the annoying carhorn, or pureMVC, we created our own framework two years ago. It borrowed ideas from cairngorm, but overall my suggestion is to use whatever you can quickly learn, understand and teach while thinking about garbage collection. Our internal Model and View classes now use swiz (for newly developed modules) and this has made maintainability and code readability super smooth.
I hope my blabbing has helped at least a bit.
Best of luck.
It seems like you just need a clean separation of UI and domain components. Look into the component guidelines and the Presentation Patterns discussed by Martin Fowler, especially the Presentation Model.
To bring these pieces together, you might want to use an IoC container like Spring ActionScript. This is a non-intrusive framework that allows you to keep layers separated.
Don't let a framework get in your way. I've seen massive misuse of frameworks like PureMVC and Cairngorm mainly because apply them in an all-or-nothing fashion.
I just finished working on a project for the last couple of months. It's online and ready to go. The client is now back with what is more or less a complete rewrite of most parts of the application. A new contract has been drafted and payment made for the additional work involved.
I'm wondering what would be the best way to start reworking this whole thing. What are the first few things you would do? How would you rework the design in a way that you stay confident that the stuff you're changing does not break other stuff?
In short, how would you tackle drastic application design changes efficiently (both DB and code)?
Presuming that you have unit tests in place, this is just refactoring.
If you don't have unit tests in place, then
Write unit tests for the parts you're likely to keep.
Write unit tests for the parts you're going to change.
Run the tests. The "keep" should pass. The "change" should fail.
Start refactoring until the tests pass.
This is NOT-A-NEW thing in software and people have done this and written a lot about this.
Try reading
Working Effectively with Legacy
Code
Refactoring Databases:
Evolutionary Database Design
The techniques explained here are invaluable to sustain any kind of long running IT projects.
Database design is different from application design in this regard.
Very often, client rethinking changes the application completely, but changes little, if anything, in the fundamental underlying data model of the enterprise. The reason for this is that clients tend to think in terms of business processes, but not in terms of fundamental data. Business processing and data processing are tightly coupled. Data storage is less tightly coupled.
In the days of classical database design, designers learned how to exploit this pattern, by dividing their database design into (at least) two layers: logical design and physical design. There are any number of times that a change of business process requires a complete rewrite of the application, and a major rework of the database physical design, but requires few, if any, changes to the logical design.
If your database design didn't separate out the layers like this, it's hard to tell what gets affected and what doesn't. Start with your tables and columns. Ask yourself if any of the changes require removing any column from the table it's in, or require inventing new columns. If the answer is no, you're in luck. Next, look at the constraints placed on the database (things like PRIMARY KEY, FOREIGN KEY, UNIQUE and NOT NULL). These constraints might be tightened or loosened by the client's changes. If not, you're in luck. If you didn't declare any constraints in the database, and chose to do all your integrity protection in application code, you're probably out of luck.
You still have a fair amount of work to do in terms of changing the indexes on the tables, and the way the application works with the data. But you've salvaged part of the investment in the old system.
The application itself is much more vulnerable to client changes in process than the database. If your database design was completely driven by your application design, you may be out of luck.
If it's THAT drastic of a change it might be best to just start over. I've worked on a number of projects that have gone through some drastic changes.
Starting over gives you a chance to use experience learned since the last project and provide a more efficent product.
I would recommend against trying to re-work the old site into the new site, you'll probably spend more time fiddling around changing things than you would have if you had just re-written it.
Best of luck to you !
How would you rework the design in a way that you stay confident that the stuff you're changing does not break other stuff? In short, how would you tackle drastic application design changes efficiently (both DB and code)?
Tests, code complexity/coverage metrics, and a continuous integration system. Run them early and often, so you know which parts are the riskiest and where to start writing.
These will become your safety nets when you have to make potentially problematic changes. If something does break, your CI system will tell you, and you won't have spent weeks down some rabbit hole before you realize there's a problem.
Sometimes you do things better the second time around so just try and stay positive. Plus you will have more domain knowledge this time around.