I want my mxml or actionscript components to be reusable and loosly coupled. I am wondering if it is good practice to use the FlexGlobals.topApplication to dispatch and listen for events. For instance I want my login component to dispatch events to the topApplication so when i reuse that component in a different project I won't have to change anything being all applications have a topApplication.
My other option is to have a separate static class to handle event dispatching but then I am creating a dependency on that static class.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I would recommend that you read about event propagation and have your login component dispatch the event to "whoever" catches it as it bubbles up through the hierarchy.
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=events_08.html
I have to agree with the answer by Stian here for the most part. With regard to weltraumpirat's comment I feel dependency injection can be great but also adds a lot of complication with regard to debugging/testing IMO and if you're not actually going to have different implementations of an interface just adds a lot of garbage code to look through without any real benefit. I feel like Spring on the service layer side works out well because you can change out implementations for the data access layer (DAO) if you switch DBs or something of that nature but it's hard for me to see the benefit on the front-end.
I would not recommend using the topLevelApplication as you'll end up with something like cairngorm where you have this humongous set of events/event handlers happening at the top level. Not to mention if you follow their suggested model you end up with a bunch of pointless event classes that simply define a string (there's better and worse ways to go about it using Cairngorm but I'm not a fan of what I've seen in the wild).
A developer at my company wrote a custom MVC "micro-framework" that works great for us where we can attach a controller to any display object to handle events for it, this works wonderfully but does require the initial overhead of developing/testing it. It's built on top of the existing Event scheme in Flex so our MVCEvent class extends Event (ours just bubble by default as we tend to want this for the types of events we're creating where the controller could be at any level above the UIComponent dispatching the event, and can always opt to turn off bubbling, however starting with the Event base class means we can utilitze the built in EventDispatcher dispatchEvent() method). He wrote just about everything using an interface to define the methods for each part and only assuming objects implement a given interface to be used in a particular context (as in IMVCEvent, IMVCCommand) this way if the built in framework implementation doesn't work for your particular scenario you just need to create a new class that implements the same interface (if extension also doesn't work for your case). This gives a huge amount of flexibility yet at the same time we're generally able to just re-use existing implementations of events, commands, or controllers. In each app we're just defining new views and commands for things that are specific to the business rules of the application.
So what's that all boil down to, I suggest you roll your own as a library then re-use that library for your many projects. You will know your own library in and out and can tweak it as you see fit quickly without trying to understand the many use cases someone designed their MVC framework to handle.
I realize this isn't an ideal solution in terms of speed to get something done now, but I think it really is the best solution for the long haul (it's been great for us that's really all I can say).
Amendment here to acknowledge the existing Flex MVC frameworks available and appease the crowd.
Robot Legs
By the way see what the creator of robot legs has to say about using his code: His words not mine
Swiz
Mate
Stackoverflow question about flex frameworks
Related
Can someone help me understand the advantages of Spring Web Flow.
What I have understood is
All the flows can be centrally configured in an XML file.
Need not have an overhead of carrying over the data from one request to another as it can be done by flow scope.
It helps especially in cases like Breadcrumbs navigation.
Flows can be further divided into Sub Flows to reduce the complexity.
Are there any other ones which I am have not tweaked into?
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say don't use it for anything other than simple use cases. Simple use cases meaning no ajax calls, no modal dialogs, no partial updates just standard html forms/flows for simple persistence (i.e page A -> page B -> Page C where each 'page' maps to a view-state definition in a 1 to 1 relationship all defined in the same flow xml file).
Spring webflow cons:
Yes everything is in xml files in theory it is suppose to be simple but when you have multiple flow xml files each with multiple state definitions and possibly subflow definitions it can become cumbersome to maintain or easily determine what the sequential logic of a flow is. (kind of like the old "GOTO operator" where any part of a flow logic can jump back to any previously or later defined part making the flow logic although seemingly "sequential" in xml... un-intuitive to follow)
Some features of Spring Webflow's documentation are unintuitive or flat out undocumented leading to hours of trial and error. For instance, exception handeling, usauge of 'output' tag (only works in subflow->back to parent caller undocumented), sending back flash view responses to a user is also unintuitive and uses a different container than Spring MVC (many times when a flow ends you want to send a msg to the user that is defined in a controller outside of webflow... but since the flow ended you can't do it with in spring webflow using flashScope container), etc...
Adding subflows although sounds good does not reduce complexity actually increases it. Due to the way subflows are defined. Definitions are long and complex and can be confusing when you have many end-states in both the main parent flow and the child subflows.
Initial setup and configuration can be painful if integrating with certain 3rd party view frameworks like Apache Tiles or Theymeleaf... I recall spending a few hours if not days on this.
State snapshots (Saving the user's input between pages) although a powerful feature from Flow A's view-state_1 <-> Flow A's view-state_2 and vise versa. This does not work between Main Flow A <-> Sub Flow B and vise versa... forcing the developer to manually bind (or rather hack) saving a user's state between Parent main flow's <-> subflows.
Debugging application logic placed inside webflow can be difficult. For instance, in webflow you can assign variables and perform condition checks all using SPEL inside the xml but this tends to be a pitfall. Over time you learn to avoid placing application logic inside the actual webflow xml and only use the xml to call service class methods and to place the returned values in the various scopes (again this hard learned lesson/best practice is undocumented). Also, because you are executing logic using SPEL... refactoring classes, method names, or variables sometimes silently break your application significantly increasing your development time.
fragment rendering... a powerful but unintuitive feature of webflow. Setting up fragment rendering was 1 of the most painful things I had to do with webflow. The documentation was lacking. I think this feature could easily go in the pros side if it was better documented and easy to setup. I actually documented how to use this feature via stackoverflow... How to include a pop-up dialog box in subflow
Static URLs per flow. If your flow has multiple views defined with in 1 flow your URL will not change navigating from view-state to view-state. This can be limiting if you want to control or match the content of the page with a dynamic url.
If your flow is defined in "/WEB-INF/flows/doSumTing/sumting-flow.xml" and your "base-path" is set to "WEB-INF/flows". Then to navigate to your flow you goto http://<your-host>/<your-webapp-name-if-defined>/doSumTing . The flow file name is completely ignored and not used in the URL at all. Although clear now I found this unintuitive when I first started.
Spring Webflow pros:
concept of "scope" containers flowScope, viewScope, flashScope, sessionScope and having easy access to these containers WITH IN A FLOW gives the developer flexibility as these are accessible from anywhere and are mutable.
Easily define states view-state,action-state,decision-state,end-state which clearly defines what each state is doing but as mentioned in the cons... if your application is complex and has MANY different states and transitions constantly Going back and forth... this can clutter your -flow.xml file makes it hard to read or follow the sequential logic. It's only easy if you have simple use cases with a small number of state definitions.
Seldom used but a powerful feature of webflow is flow inheritance. Common flow functionality across multiple flows can be defined in a single abstract parent flow and extended by child flows (similar to an abstract class definition in java). This feature is nice with regards to the DRY principle if you have many flows that share common logic.
Easily defined validation rules and support for JSR-303 (but Spring MVC has this as well)
The output tag can be used to send POJOs back and forth between Main flow <-> subflow. This feature is nice because the parameters don't need to be passed through the url via get/post and can pass as many POJOs as you wish.
Clearly defined views. What the view name is and which model variable it is being mapped to (e.g <view-state id="edit" view="#{flowScope.modelPathName}/editView" model="modelObj"> ). Also in the example just demonstrated can use preprocessing expressions for viewnames or most arguments in webflow... nice feature though not very well documented :/
Conclusion: Spring Webflow project was a good idea and sounds great on paper but the cons make it cumbersome to work with in complex use cases increasing development time significantly. Since a better solution exists for complex use cases (Spring MVC) to me it is not worth investing heavily in web flow because you can achieve the same results with Spring MVC and with a faster development time for both complex and simple use cases. Morever, Spring MVC is actively maintained, has better documentation, and a larger user community. Maybe if some of my cons are addressed it would tip the scales in Webflow's favor but until then I will recommend Spring MVC over webflow.
Note: I might be missing some things but this is what I came up with off the top of my head.
Additionally, you can use the back button and retain state up to the number of snapshots you choose to store.
You also may find this related question useful.
I'm looking for suggestions regarding implementing process flow / work flow management in a PureMVC based application.
Our Flex application includes a number of processes such as account creation, payment processing, etc.
Within our team, there is some discussion of how rigidly we should adhere to the PureMVC model.
Within the PureMVC model, it seems reasonable that the current state in the process could be managed in a Proxy.
Commands are clearly responsible for processing the actions required of each node and for node transitions.
Mediators for managing the UI.
However, I think that there is an important bit still missing here: a ProcessController.
The approaches we've reviewed all seem to either violate the PureMVC model (even just slightly) or make unreadable code.
A proxy would maintain the state of the process. As such, it seems to be an appropriate way to implement the controller. However, this is putting a lot of business logic into the proxy.
The Mediator space makes more sense, but the controller in that space would not necessarily directly interact with any particular UI element but would instead coordinate/delegate to dedicated Mediators.
Yet another model would have us put process transition information into Commands. While this seems to be the best place for that work (given the role of commands relative to proxies and mediators), this approach looks to make some particularly heinous looking code with process transition logic distributed among scores of commands.
So how have others handled this problem?
Thank
Curtis
This is exactly the problem that PureMVC StateMachine Utility (and Finite State Machines in general) are meant to solve.
In a simple XML format, you can define states, valid transitions to other states, and the actions that trigger those transitions.
It is all notification-based, so you send StateMachine.ACTION notifications that cause the StateMachine to execute any entering/exiting guard logic that may be necessary (e.g., only allow exiting the FORM_ENTRY state if all the data valid, or only allow entry into the FORM_PROCESSING state if the user has admin rights, etc.). If a state change occurs, notifications are sent that can be used to organize the view or execute logic upon entering the new state.
Here is a StateMachine Overview presentation that will give you a better idea
http://puremvc.tv/#P003/
I think your idea of 'ProcessController' is probably the better way of doing it. Personally, I'm not a fan of PureMVC and don't use it because it doesn't allow enough flexibility or extension points to help with such problems.
Frankly, it's hard to advise on your issue because I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish. I do agree that the concern needs to be handled by one object. If you can, try to create a model that can store the data for the process and have another class just manage it throughout. Not sure if that makes sense, but then again, your problem isn't very clear either.
As an added extra, I would look into Dependency Injection. I'm trying to remember if PureMVC does it (I don't think it does), but with DI it would of been a fairly simple problem to solve. Frameworks like Parsley and Robotlegs are really good at that.
In pureMVC the State Machine Utility is probably the best choice for a process controller - and btw, according to the Implementation Idioms & best Practices doc. for PureMVC, it's perfectly fine to have mediators that don't manage a visible component
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 have started design of a ColdFusion application that is entirely web based. Not much use of Flash forms, or AJAX.
The first version is a strict web app. Version 2 will be a Flex front end.
I want to design and build things so that the Flex layer can use existing logic. It's okay if it means I have to do extra work in version 1. I would like to harden the logic code once and not re-factor.
What are things worth considering / designing / implementing now that would greatly aid in being able to design an app in this way?
One big suggestion, depending on where you're coming from (as it's a rather big question), would be to leverage the ColdFusion component (CFC) as much as possible; the CFC architecture is excellent, versatile and powerful, it integrates quite nicely with Flex (and will do so even better in coming versions of Flex and CF), so to the extent you can design your component tier with that in mind, you'll be glad you did.
It's been a while since I wrote CF code, but on the last big project I did with it, I spent a good deal of time designing a functional tier out of CFCs to be used by the plain ol' Web app, much as it sounds like you're doing -- and then later, when it came time to bolt on an Ajax UI for a subsection of the site (it could've been Flex, but in my case, it happened to be a YUI implementation), I created a facade layer of publicly exposed CFCs whose job it was to wrap and expose a specialized subset of the functionality provided by the first tier. Doing so allowed me to leverage and extend existing code in a way unique to the services that needed it, without having to expose the underlying (first tier) CFCs directly.
I'm sure other folks will have many more (and probably more detailed) suggestions, but that's the one big one I have for you first off -- learn, know and use the CF component. Good luck!
I agree with Christian that the best thing you can do is put everything as far as database logic or any other logic for the application in CFC's, and more specifically, I would suggest using webservices. The main reason for this is that it will allow you to eventually have your cf code, which is all of your database persistence and logic on a different server than where you serve the flex applications from, and would allow code reuse for other applications as well. The nice thing too about writing your cfc's as webservices is that you can use them either as webservices or directly as components in Flex using AMF (remote object). Now of course how much those benefits really apply to you depends on your situation, but its a good plan to follow.
But the main suggestion is to think of your application as having a presentation layer and a logic and persistence layer. If you are making a decision, it goes in the logic layer. If you are showing a screen or doing anything with presentation, it goes in that layer. Keeping those things separate will allow you to more easily switch out your presentation layer to flex later on.
Also, it can be useful to trap any errors thrown and return messages as results (with any results, like in a structure) from all methods. Flex has a nasty habit of telling you something went wrong, but not passing along the error information. This will help you to debug and handle any errors that get thrown much easier.
Check out Matt Woodward's presentation on the topic, it's very informative:
And a few general things to add to the answers everyone else provided:
Encapsulate your data interaction in CFCs (typically in Services which delegate to Gateways and DAOs)
In most cases, you'll want to create "bean" CFC's to represent your business objects (users, widgets, etc), these are what will transfer to Flex as ActionScript classes. You'll need to add cfproperty tags to them to make them serializable to ActionScript (case- and order- sensitive!), so pay attention to that when you create them to prevent having to deal with it later, and use one of the code generation tools like the Adobe CF Extensions for Eclipse or Illudium PU36 to do it for you.
Create a remote facade CFC (or set of CFCs depending on how big the app is) that delegates methods to your Services - this is where you set the access for your methods to "remote" - generally the only place you want to do this (it will feel like you're doing a lot of delegating but it pays off to have all your remote services centralized)
As you develop with HTML, treat your remote facade CFCs as your API and make your HTML views as "dumb" as possible. Think of it this way: any logic you write in your CF view will have to be replicated in your Flex view. If you build the project only using your remote API, you'll have a pretty good feel for how Flex will interact with the application.
Check out ColdSpring, it offers a lot of great features for managing all the objects you're going to create!
I don't claim to be an architecture expert and I know I've thrown around a lot of jargon here to keep it short, but some Googling around CF blogs should turn up a lot of info about the design patterns I've mentioned. Good luck!
What are the downsides to using static methods in a web site business layer versus instantiating a class and then calling a method on the class? What are the performance hits either way?
The performance differences will be negligible.
The downside of using a static method is that it becomes less testable. When dependencies are expressed in static method calls, you can't replace those dependencies with mocks/stubs. If all dependencies are expressed as interfaces, where the implementation is passed into the component, then you can use a mock/stub version of the component for unit tests, and then the real implementation (possibly hooked up with an IoC container) for the real deployment.
Jon Skeet is right--the performance difference would be insignificant...
Having said that, if you are building an enterprise application, I would suggest using the traditional tiered approach espoused by Microsoft and a number of other software companies. Let me briefly explain:
I'm going to use ASP.NET because I'm most familiar with it, but this should easily translate into any other technology you may be using.
The presentation layer of your application would be comprised of ASP.NET aspx pages for display and ASP.NET code-behinds for "process control." This is a fancy way of talking about what happens when I click submit. Do I go to another page? Is there validation? Do I need to save information to the database? Where do I go after that?
The process control is the liaison between the presentation layer and the business layer. This layer is broken up into two pieces (and this is where your question comes in). The most flexible way of building this layer is to have a set of business logic classes (e.g., PaymentProcessing, CustomerManagement, etc.) that have methods like ProcessPayment, DeleteCustomer, CreateAccount, etc. These would be static methods.
When the above methods get called from the process control layer, they would handle all the instantiation of business objects (e.g., Customer, Invoice, Payment, etc.) and apply the appropriate business rules.
Your business objects are what would handle all the database interaction with your data layer. That is, they know how to save the data they contain...this is similar to the MVC pattern.
So--what's the benefit of this? Well, you still get testability at multiple levels. You can test your UI, you can test the business process (by calling the business logic classes with the appropriate data), and you can test the business objects (by manually instantiating them and testing their methods. You also know that if your data model or objects change, your UI won't be impacted, and only your business logic classes will have to change. Also, if the business logic changes, you can change those classes without impacting the objects.
Hope this helps a bit.
Performance wise, using static methods avoids the overhead of object creation/destruction. This is usually non significant.
They should be used only where the action the method takes is not related to state, for instance, for factory methods. It'd make no sense to create an object instance just to instantiate another object instance :-)
String.Format(), the TryParse() and Parse() methods are all good examples of when a static method makes sense. They perform always the same thing, do not need state and are fairly common so instancing makes less sense.
On the other hand, using them when it does not make sense (for example, having to pass all the state into the method, say, with 10 arguments), makes everything more complicated, less maintainable, less readable and less testable as Jon says. I think it's not relevant if this is about business layer or anywhere else in the code, only use them sparingly and when the situation justifies them.
If the method uses static data, this will actually be shared amongst all users of your web application.
Code-only, no real problems beyond the usual issues with static methods in all systems.
Testability: static dependencies are less testable
Threading: you can have concurrency problems
Design: static variables are like global variables