Hi I have to do a small CMS application in MS ASP.NET using WebForms.
I do everything on my own: front-end and back-end and Data Base schema.
Now that I want to develop the site, I wonder if I should start from front-end first, or back-end.
Considering this is a small project, could you guys give me a list of steps I do better following to help to determinate what is the best order for developing my application?
Thanks once again for your time.
You'll develop all tiers as you go most of the time
For some page you may first create database schema and fill it up with some dummy data and than work your way up.
For others you may start with a page itself and then write functionality that's needed to get it working. Especially when this page hasn't been envisioned enough. This is not bad nor good. It's just the way development tends to be.
Some considerations
Follow agile development
Write down some requirements in a form of user stories (and keep track of them), that don't give any info about page, data etc. Just something like As a user I would like to have primary navigation on my page. This kind of a story will permit later changes to code/pages without the story becoming invalid.
Don't haste into something fully functional at first. Don't over-engineer your code. Because you'll end up doing changes later = follow YAGNI. For instance don't fully design your DB at first. Do just as much as you need per story being developed. But do think of future things that you'll have to integrate into existing codebase.
Refactor existing code right away when you see something should be changed.
If you have someone to test your code, let them do it. Don't develop next stories before existing bugs have been fully resolved. You'll be grateful for this later.
If your code is semi-complex I suggest you write unit tests, so future code changes won't break existing functionality.
Most of all: learn as you go and change existing code while doing so. Since you're learning these technologies I suggest you stick to simplicity at first. You'll add more complex things when needed. Some of them won't get done at all. So in the end youl realise YIDNI (yep, I didn't need it).
I usually write out what my requirements are first, if I need to use a database, I create that first, always. After my database I start working on front end that connects and uses my already created database.
I worry about the front-end last, can you can always change that pretty easily
I would say that in many systems, the back-end is there to support what is needed for the front-end to work. If you don't know what the front-end needs, there is little chance of successfully designing the back-end. So I'd start off with putting at least a rough front-end in place first (if even just a paper prototype).
I tend to approach all of my projects with a back-to-front approach for one simple reason - testability. Writing solid tests against a back-end early will will make it easier to work on the other tiers progressively. It also, as "bonus" helps to keep business logic out of places it does not belong.
I find it easier to develop the logic and back-end first, so that I get that right, then apply the interface to it. This way you avoid writing functionality based on what you think you need from the front end.
It is important to get a good scope of what you want to do/tackle, and try to implement that in the back-end first. Then wrap it in a nice interface!
Related
I'm working on an a pretty big project right now and am trying to implement an MVP architecture. I'm starting to run across a instances where I think JQuery or Javascript might be better suited than server-side code. I'm looking for feedback on how others are implementing client-side programming into their enterprise applications. How are you structuring the client-side code and how do you determine when to use it?
Things that can make user say "wow". For example - Populating search results while user has just typed 3-4 character of search term. Just go back in past and think about Yahoo or Hotmail which used to postback to server when you clicked on "Create Message". But when google came they just did on client side without going to server. I bet you would have said "wow" to that. At least I did.
Things that can reduce server load. For example - Adding extra data entry row in HTML table, instead of doing it through round trip, Increase/Decrease of quantity etc.
These are just some example to sight. Even to do these things properly you need to go to server but that will be behind the scene using ajax. Other than this you need to select few more jquery plugins that you will use in your project. To name some are jQuery UI, jQuery Validation, jQuery AnythingSlider etc. There are too many of them.
Http://ClearTrip.com is one site that I envy for their UX. Visit their site from mobile device and you will get further clues about their UX work. Besideds just coding you need to have a person in your team who can work on these UX aspects.
Regarding how this fits into DDD: I've just recently started my journey into DDD but one hears a lot about command/query separation in that circle. Certainly if you are doing something that hits your domain (like fetching for auto-completion or certainly if you allow partial page submission to accomplish a domain command) you have to decide how it gets there and how the domain is structured to handle it.
I think two decisions are most relevant.
First, bits entirely in the browser and even those specifically in your application layer are outside your domain and thus, though covered in the layered architecture part of the DDD discussion, do not land in the entity/value/event/service, etc. discussion. If, however, you are using AJAX to interact with your application layer and in turn need to access your domain, you need to consider again two things in my mind.
(a) Are you separating commands and queries simply using different methods on your domain? Fine if you have a relatively small demand for either queries or commands and this will not seem like "noise" in your domain API. Otherwise, you have a separate bounded context...another domain modeled just for queries that your UI needs to avoid clutter on your domain. Regardless, you are doing something like JS->AJAX handler in application layer->domain (including a domain service).
(b) Is this a command or a query? Once you have (a) figured out, this lets you know where the access will land...then use the presentation layer's use case to elaborate the domain concept and put it into your ubiquitous language.
Second, you have the DTO vs direct to domain decision. This can be a religious war gathering topic, but usually the answer is "depends." I think there are cases for using DTOs and cases for not (within the same architecture)...just search for all the discussions around the topic and apply the pattern only where it adds value; I won't try to cover details here.
Hope this provides some insight or at least conversation magnet to which others will add.
I guess this question is a little too subjective. Looks like I'm just going to grab a view books on advanced javascript and study up on the JQuery library.
I'm currently working on a high-traffic online search site.
They have various changes they want to implement over time, and they've indicated that ultimately they want the site re-done in ASP.NET MVC.
Currently the site is an ASP.NET WebForms project; however true ASP.NET controls are rarely used. Instead there are lots of server-side tags - i.e. <% ... %>. The code in these tags will usually be a call to a static method in a static class or a fragment of C# code that generates HTML.
Many of the static methods generate HTML by appending text to a string-builder and returning it as a string.
I understand the concept of a 'Helper' method, but I don't like the idea of the HTML being rendered by concatenating it to a string variable. I think they'd be better off using 'Partials'.
The thing that concerns me is that it's a pretty complex site, and I'm not sure if a complete rebuild of the site in ASP.NET MVC is a good idea.
In spite of the bad structure, it's not really that hard to add the new features that are being requested. (Perhaps because I've had past experience working with difficult code).
However I think there's a risk that at some time in the future, a requirement will come along that will be very difficult to implement unless we do a complete clean-up of the code-base.
I want to put this question out there and see if anyone's faced a similar issue, and how you dealt with it.
Also what are your thoughts on doing the re-build as a 20%-time side-project? Are there any downsides to doing it this way?
Wow, this is some project.
Personally I think any site written in ASP.Net will need to be totally re-done as far as the UI is concerned. MVC does it a whole lot differently.
Your business logic on the other hand should be ok though me thinks so long as you have seperation of concerns and it's not bound to the UI.
Data access should be ok and probably needs minimal touching. But that again depends on how tightly bound your web site is.
I think the best approach is to spend some time looking at how MVC does business and do a critical analysis of what it would take to convert and then begin converting all the layers above the UI in preperation.
Get your foundation in place and maybe even, if possible, use the MVC framework already. Again, only if you can and only if viable.
Doing this as a side project would work I think because you can take some of your libraries and begin converting them in preperation for the mvc conversion.
But be mindful that once you have converted a project/layer that you (do) implement it else it runs the risk of being forgotten or changes get made to the other layer that then need to be coded into the new etc. You know the traps.
As for the UI, that's going to be the big one especially if you use a lot of asp controls. You maight want to spend a lot of time evaluating the UI and come up with a list of controls that you either need to replace or write. Then you can begin to see a pattern and get some consistency going.
If you have a lot of code in your code behind, you may want to begin moving this to another layer as this will help later on when you create controllers etc. They can then instantiate your new layer and all should be good.
That's all I can think of from the top of my head. I'll edit or comment as I think of things.
Hope this helps.
If I have that project and I was asked to redo it from scratch, I will not use MVC to render the UI, I will use Web API/OData to host all the backend, and will use any good Front End to draw the UI, Angular will be a very good option.
Having it as a side project is good only if the pace of changes and new features in the old project is less than the progrress done in the new project, you don't want to end up with doing duplicate effort and at some point you will have to code freeze the old one.
Also, you have to consider any data migration if you will have to change the data storage option.
i know vb.net, but have had no experience at all with web programming. i need to make a web app that can run in a browser where there is a board game and pieces that you can move around. can someone help me get started? are there any examples in asp.net?
i need something like this:
http://www.hallofbrightcarvings.com/game/grid
i don't know what language this is built in, but i would much prefer vb.net. i would like the pieces to be pictures instead of text. please help get started.
I have a very basic example of moving pieces around a grid written in javascript.
You can see it in action here and if you take a look at the source you can see it's done with jquery mostly. Feel free to take a prod around, I haven't updated that version in a long time but hopefully you might find it useful.
I think ASP.NET can do very little for you according to what you described. What you need is either Flash or Javascript skills.
Let's decompose this, you need two things if you want to make the whole thing yourself
Client Side: Flash, SilverLight, JAVA
Server Side:PHP, ASP.net, Java
As you know vb.net and want to work with asp.net, so I recommand to use Silverlight.
How complex can this be?
Depends on what you want to build, if you want to build a Mafia war games, then you'll need to work the user interface and it'll be very hard. Also the server side will be important as you need to handle registration and relation between different players.
If you specify more your question, you could get better answers.
The example you cited above is fully client-side, which means the code all sits on the browser and the server doesn't do anything to enable the grid. So if you did a "Save As" of that page on your computer, you could run it offline.
You should use the view source functionality of your browser on the page you cited, and look at how it's built. It's done using HTML, CSS and javascript. Use w3schools to get yourself started on those three matters.
If you really need to code it using vb.net, I don't know of any way that allows drag-and-drop for web forms. I'd be interested to know though. Ajax and .net drag-and-drop should be keywords for you to look into.
To do this on the web, you'd probably want to divide the project into two components: Client-side and server-side.
On the server-side, you'll want to use language like PHP, Python or ASP.NET. I think ASP.NET has some way to use VB.NET, so that would be a good choice for you to minimize the number of new things you need to learn.
Client-side is going to be the big hurdle. There's basically two different approaches to take here:
HTML+CSS+Javascript, using HTTP callbacks (ie, AJAX) to communicate with the server.
Flash using Flex (I think HTTP calls is probably the easiest way to talk to your server here as well.)
For a game like that, I would think that Flash is probably the best way to go. It will be easier to do graphics and sounds, and it'll run the same in every browser that has Flash support.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Concerning pages that build a web application:
Lately, I have found myself creating web pages that are simpler than the ones I used to. Before, I would try to jam as much functionality into a single page as I could to prevent from having lots of pages.
I am starting to realize that this was just making things way more complex, convoluted, and confusing than it had to be. Why not have more pages? I think the reason that I was doing this was because I didn't want the user to have to browse to other pages; just to have all the functionality they needed on a single page.
Well, these good intentions turned into an overly confusing interface for the user and very unmanageable source code. I am a new developer and I am trying to be very reflective of what I am doing so that I can improve. If it makes a difference, I am developing in ASP.net (though these are probably considerations for any platform).
My questions are:
Am I overthinking these things?
Has anyone else found themselves doing this?
Where is the happy medium?
There is no expert who can give you a rule that works in all places at all times. I have been known in my industry for years for "easy" interfaces and we've won significant amounts of business for it (as well as 5 "Best in Class" awards). I have also had people within my company and outside of it tell me - for years - that they like my work but wish that I would "jazz it up" with more graphics and such. What always amazes me is how little connection people see between the two.
So...a few rules of thumb:
A page should do one main thing.
A page may well have multiple links related to the main thing
Menuing and link layout should be consistent across pages
Simpler is better than more complex
Pages should be visually appealing and inviting
Rule 4 is more important than rule 5.
For example, my product provides an interface that lets people define classes and events to be displayed in a calendar. I could have one page that lets you Review, Add, Update, Delete and Edit the classes. Indeed, in some simpler areas, I've used the gridview to let people manage everything in a grid. However, classes have too much information to do this and still follow the rules above.
So,
The main idea is: "Here is a list of classes for this location"
The links are "Add New" shown above and to the right of the grid, Change and Delete are links within each row. This is consistent across the app.
Menuing for the system as a whole is always across the right/top. Nothing else appears on the class/event page except for standard elements common to all pages (a logo, a header, a footer).
The grid is nicely styled but there are no spurious graphics (4,5,6)
A few last things about UIs and graphic design.
First, develop your own vision and be consistent across pages and apps.
Second, do not be afraid of simplicity.
Next, when soliciting advice from others keep in mind that you do not want their advice - you want their impressions: you want to understand the way they perceive the interface. Advice is sometimes good but, more often than not, actually harmful. In my experience, everyone thinks that they are a UI expert.
When you do your hallway (or formal) useability testing you should discount almost all advice to the effect that "you should make that stand out more." As you'll see, it will quickly become "and that," "and that," "and the other." If you follow this advice, you'll end up with a mess due to Brittingham's first rule of design: If everything is important than nothing is. (There you go: when explaining why you can't make someone stand out more, just tell them that "it violates Brittingham's first rule of design!")
Hope this helps!
You hit the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid)
I've done this in the past as well and not only does it make for a hideous UI, but confusing as to what operations you can do on the page due to having too much functionality. I've often found in testing that I did not have enough checks to see if the user could perform a certain operation based on the state of the data.
It's easy enough in ASP.Net to write several pages that do simple tasks and then link them together with Response.Redirect or Server.Transfer. Now all I try to achieve on any given page is what the design specs say. So if my page is just a search page, that's all I give. If the user wants to see the details of an item that was returned in the search, then I send them to an itemDetails.aspx page.
You've broken a wall that most software developers have, the one that was blocking your view on usability before. A lot of developers don't really think about it and try to make it easier for them by stuffing functionality in one window, web page or whatever.
The thing is once you start designing software from the user's point of view, i.e. making it easier, several things start to become clear. One is the issue of code maintenance, that code is easily more managable to work on if you don't stuff everything in one giant class or whatever travesty you've been doing. The other is usability itself, that you start to think how the user is actually using your application through the graphical interface. Third is avoiding requirements or scope creep where you stop developing functionality that the user doesn't need.
We as users want simplicity partly because we don't want to spend most of our time muddling through a bad UI when we can get our work done faster with a simple and slick UI. That makes it for us software developers the right thing to do, to think through your design on all levels... that and specs always lie.
Definitely agree: most attempts at writing pages/forms that do too much have resulted in
bugs and rewrites. Problems occur with keeping all parts valid/synchronized,
excess managing of users' expectations ("I've entered a bill number here and clicked "find person" there but it gives an error message. Why?") when the two are logically separate. These questions cannot arise if only the valid options are visible,
Formatting/layout issues: In ASP.NET pages, trying to layout independent User Controls turns out to be a nightmare ("But we really want all the buttons vertically aligned!" in separate user controls. Good luck with that.)
I'd consider webpages with more than one functionality only if the target audience consists of domain experts, i.e. people that need lots of functionality on one page for better productivity (think data-entry or financial software with lots of variables).
Even then, most of the time, it's possible separate pages into single units.
No
Yes - me
I found the happy medium was to use Masterpages, and using it in a way that was familiar to IFrames. That I could have a lots of functionality combined well together. There is a more interesting way of doing this with WPF/Silverlight called Prism
The amount of functionality on a page is usually not determined by you but by your customer. If the customer demands a single page to update some VeryComplexObject, you're likely to end up with an aspx page that has a significant number of lines. Main reason is that you simply have a lot of event handlers for all actions on the page.
Whether that page is complex is entirely up to you. You should always attempt to make your code-behind file as simple and clean as possible. Some suggestions in that direction:
Move all business code to another application layer.
Use ObjectDataSource for providing data to data-bound controls such as ListView, GridView, Repeater, ... Delegating loading of data to a dedicated object prevents a lot of overhead in your aspx.cs file.
Another suggestion is to use user controls to implement portions of your page. You would usually only do this when you can reuse the user control, but it can also be of great help reducing page complexity (both of your code-behind file as well as your aspx).
Sometimes I think we are all guilty of forgetting just who it is that we develop our applications for. It isn't always easy as a developer to be able to take a step back and have a look at your application as a user might do so. This is why big companies employee hundreds of people to do this for them and they don't always get it right.
Usability is a massive subject but it is defiantly something that all developers need to keep in mind. It has taken me a long time to learn this but when tackling any development task I always try to think about how my users are going to interact with what I am writing. This will make a difference to all levels of your development.
I would suggest reading Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug. This book won't take you an age to read and it puts across some fantastic ideas that can help you to develop applications that are much easier to use and understand.
I always find that once I have thought about the user experience the decisions about what my web pages are going to do and how they are going to interact are much easier to make.
Maybe you should ask the people who are using your site. Or better yet, just watch people use your site. I think that would tell you if your site is designed well, or if you need to change it.
Although ASP.NET MVC seems to have all the hype these days, WebForms are still quite pervasive. How do you keep your project sane? Let's collect some tips here.
I generally try to stay clear of it... but when i do use WebForms, i follow these precepts:
Keep the resulting HTML clean: Just because you're not hand-coding every <div> doesn't mean the generated code has to become an unreadable nightmare. Avoiding controls that produce ugly code can pay off in reduced debugging time later on, by making problems easier to see.
Minimize external dependencies: You're not being paid to debug other people's code. If you do choose to rely on 3rd-party components then get the source so you don't have to waste unusually large amounts of time fixing their bugs.
Avoid doing too much on one page: If you find yourself implementing complex "modes" for a given page, consider breaking it into multiple, single-mode pages, perhaps using master pages to factor out common aspects.
Avoid postback: This was always a terrible idea, and hasn't gotten any less terrible. The headaches you'll save by not using controls that depend on postback are a nice bonus.
Avoid VIEWSTATE: See comments for #4.
With large projects the best suggestion that I can give you is to follow a common design pattern that all your developers are well trained in and well aware of. If you're dealing with ASP.NET then the best two options for me are:
o Model View Presenter (though this is now Supervisor Controller and Passive View).
This is a solid model pushing seperation between your user interface and business model that all of your developers can follow without too much trouble. The resulting code is far more testable and maintainable. The problem is that it isn't enforced and you are required to write lots of supporting code to implement the model.
o ASP.NET MVC
The problem with this one is that it's in preview. I spoke with Tatham Oddie and be mentioned that it is very stable and usable. I like it, it enforces the seperation of concerns and does so with minimal extra code for the developer.
I think that whatever model you choose, the most important thing is to have a model and to ensure that all of your developers are able to stick to that model.
Create web user controls for anything that will be shown on more than one page that isn't a part of masterpage type content. Example: If your application displays product information on 10 pages, it's best to have a user control that is used on 10 pages rather than cut'n'pasting the display code 10 times.
Put as little business logic in the code behind as possible. The code behind should defer to your business layer to perform the work that isn't directly related to putting things on the page and sending data back and forth from the business layer.
Do not reinvent the wheel. A lot of sloppy codebehinds that I've seen are made up of code that is doing things that the framework already provides.
In general, avoid script blocks in the html.
Do not have one page do too many things. Something I have seen time and time again is a page that say has add and edit modes. That's fine. However if you have many sub modes to add and edit, you are better off having multiple pages for each sub mode with reuse through user controls. You really need to avoid going a bunch of nested IFs to determine what your user is trying to do and then showing the correct things depending on that. Things get out of control quickly if your page has many possible states.
Learn/Grok the page lifecycle and use it to your advantage. Many ugly codebehind pages that I've seen could be cleaner if the coder understood the page lifecycle better.
Start with Master Pages on day #1 - its a pain coming back to retrofit.
Following what Odd said, I am trying out a version of the MVP called Model Presentation which is working well for me so far. I am still getting an understanding of it and adapting it to my own use but it is refreshing from the code I used to write.
Check it out here: Presentation Model
Use version control and a folder structure to prevent too many files from all being in the same folder. There is nothing more painful than waiting for Windows Explorer to load something because there are 1,000+ files in a folder and it has to load all of them when the folder is opened. A convention on naming variables and methods is also good to have upfront if possible so that there isn't this mish-mash of code where different developers all put their unique touches and it painfully shows.
Using design patterns can be helpful in organizing code and having it scale nicely, e.g. a strategy pattern can lead to an easier time when one has to add a new type of product or device that has to be supported. Similar for using some adapter or facade patterns.
Lastly, know what standards your forms are going to uphold: Is it just for IE users or should any of IE, Firefox, or Safari easily load the form and look good?