Do you have one solution with the web application project, class libraries, database project and tests? Or, do you segment it into multiple solutions? Why?
I'm asking because we're trying to streamline this scenario for Visual Studio 2010 and I'd like to get input from the community on how you'd prefer to work.
I tend (but not always) to have one solution per job, but I import existings projects from other solutions, such as my WebControlLibrary where I keep common user controls and classes, etc.
My actual solution for the job I then tend to break down into the Web Application, Business Logic Layer, Data Access Layer and Entity Layer, i.e.:
Solution
...MyCompany.WebControlLibrary
...Project
...Project.BusinessLogic
...Project.DataAccess
...Project.Entities
...Project.Scripts
...Project.Testing
...Project.Deployment
If a project requires something such as a mobile device, I'll always put that in a new solution, but it may perhaps share some projects of the current solution, i.e.
MobileSolution
...MobileProject
...Project.Entities
...MobileProject.BusinessLogic
The more 'stuff' you have combined, the slower Visual Studios becomes at building. You can obviously stop certain projects building by default, but that's when you have to start creating your own build configurations. If you are going to be creating large applications, I'd suggest breaking down into multiple solutions. I find it much easier to flick between solutions that to keep changing build configurations.
Another option is that when you build your projects you can reference their DLLs. I prefer to import said projects into my solution as you never have to worry about referencing the creating build configuration i.e. selecting the DLL from the Debug or Release folder.
Stand alone libraries can be their own solutions. References for those libraries can be made into the project that you're working with. Related items like the web application, the test setups, and specific libraries such as data access or business rules can be setup as projects within one solution. It really all comes down to how much you want to break things out for resuability.
This depends a little on the job the project performs.
For ease of use it's simple to have a solution that just contains all the projects required. If it's a large solution this can hamper you later on when the IDE starts to get slow and build times rocket through the roof.
Let's say one of the projects is a library used by your company to take card payments and interface with 3d secure. You present you're own GUI page to take the details etc.
If you had numerous sites that all take card payments you would greatly benefit by having this project in a separate solution and referencing the compiled dll. Any changes you require you would need to open up the solution, make the change, build it, go to the solution you're working in and test it. Sounds like a pita and you find it's just simpler to have it all in one big solution. But then if you have this library in every solution and make a generic change to it you need to repeat that change through out.
So you just need to make a decision on wether you're developing a separate project in the same solution or something that might be used elsewhere. If you needed more functionality than the library provides you could implement a partial class in your project and extend the library in that way. Or perhaps a wrapper class will suffice. But then you know you're not affecting the other sites that use this library and you are keeping your solution smaller and more manageable with a smaller memory print during development.
Related
For people who have experience with Portable Areas,
I would like to know if there are disadvantages to using them and why you wouldn't use them to break a large MVC application down into component parts.
Let's start with the
Definition:
A Portable Area is a dll that contains items that would normally be part of your solution. Portable Areas contain Views, Controllers, Models, even JS Scripts, CSS files and images.
Ideally, the items in your Portable Area work together to create cohesive functionality. If not, you are probably not benefiting from having a Portable Area.
Benefit
I compare Portable Areas to Web-Forms Web Parts because they are both an attempt to answer the question:
How do I create re-usable functionality?
You will benefit from Portable Areas if you want to create functionality to be used in multiple projects, or distributed as functionality to be consumed by 3rd parties.
Disadvantage
Every time you make a change to any View, JS File, CSS File, or image within your Portable Area, you will need to rebuild it. I emphasize these components because they do not normally need to be rebuilt when being tested or developed.
This can become a problem. If you find yourself re-building every time you tweak CSS, 30 second changes become 2 minute changes. Make 30 of those and you've stretched 15 minutes worth of work into 2 hours.
Portable Areas are meant for mature functionality to be re-used in multiple projects or solutions as-is.
Portable Areas are not ideal for functionality that is in early development stage.
Portable Areas are not ideal for functionality that exists in only 1 solution or project.
Many things have already said. I have some experience in working with Portable Areas, and here is my personnal point of view.
MvcContrib has not been updated since one year (see nuget). If you take a look at codeplex, you will see that there were not so many updates in source code since the last release. It may be mature, but no support can be problematic.
A portable Area is self contained in a single assembly. It's easier to reuse and to upgrade for sure, but the challenge is how do you allow enough control over the User Interface by the client application. Even if it's a reusable feature, you sometimes still want to use master layout or partials.
All web ressources (CSS, Js, Views) have to be Embedded Resources (included in dll) . This means that it's really really a pain to dev/debug because each code modification requires a rebuild. In addition, you need to client web site to host the portable area.
Portable Areas use a Custom Virtual Path Provider. The Custom Virtual Path Provider code is untested and completely untestable. The use of Virtual Path Providers are discouraged by the ASP.Net team as they can cause performance problems.
Portable Areas Vs Nuget Packages. Portable Areas were designed four years ago (before Nuget).Portable Areas solved the ability to easy transport, view and assets(Css, javacript) files into a separate application. Nuget has also solved this problem.
However even with all of these disadvantages, my team is still using it. Why ? because it was the right solution at the right time for us.
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
Let's say I have a Visual Studio solution with a Web project, a BLL project, and a DAL project. I'm trying to follow the repository pattern keeping my SQL code in the DAL with an interface that is referenced by the BLL.
I have a handful of common solutions for things such as error handling, usage logging, and other things that can be considered utility functions (i.e. not in the business spec). I'm keeping these in a Common project.
Here are a few ideas I've had with regards to structuring the Common project...
Bundle SQL with logic in a given class
Create a layered solution within the Common project
Discard the Common project and put utility functions in with BLL/DAL
Is one of these ideas better/worse than the other? Does anyone have a better solution?
It's worth noting that these utility functions will be reused in a variety of other applications.
Instead of creating a Utilities project which will be used have you thought about creating something that can provide a service? You might want to look at Aspect Oriented Programming. Red flags went up when I saw you listing off your examples error handling, logging, etc. Those scream AOP.
But if you want to stick with your layout.
I think I would go with 2, assuming that means restructuring the utilities project to be more Cohesive.
I don't understand (please clarify and I will edit my post)
Bundle SQL with logic in a given class
As for:
Discard the Common project and put utility functions in with BLL/DAL
I would be against doing so. If this logic is truly going to be repeated there is no need to push it back into your projects. This will lead to duplicate code and increased maintenance.
Side Note:
Just as a lessons learned, the only way Utilities projects work, are if you are the only developer or it is well documented and well designed. Sometimes utilities are too programmer specific, or are written in a way that only benefits a particular coders style.
I have seen countless times people rework their infrastructure pulling out all kinds of utilities, only to see their utilities project never get used. Make sure the "utilities" you are creating are truly useful to other people.
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 am the CTO and sole developer for my company. I'm getting ready to hire our first developer and possibly a second within the next 6-12 months. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never used source code control as part of my workflow. I guess being a 1-member development team has allowed me to be a bit lazy. It's not that I haven't wanted to, I just have a bit of a mental block about how to get started with it.
We have 5 web applications that I build and maintain. We use ASP.NET, and each web app references a single .NET Class Library (DLL) that has been copied into the "bin" folder for each app. I've been developing with a single Visual Studio "solution" that includes the class library and all of the web apps. A bit bloated, I'm sure, but this method has made it easy for me to minimize mistakes by enabling me to do global find and replace operations on all of my apps (and the class library) at the same time.
I realize that implementing source code control is a big change to my workflow by itself, but also introducing another developer into my process has me a bit overwhelmed. I'm looking for some assistance on how to develop a workflow that will enable my small team to move quickly without cumbersome processes. I'd like to avoid discussions about which SCC system to choose (we're going to use Mercurial). I'm more interested in discussing the structure and workflow aspects of this.
Here are the questions I need help with:
Should I split up each app into a separate "project" or keep them all together so we can continue to benefit from global find-and-replace operations when necessary. I'm worried about splitting them up because of the class library situation (see #2).
If splitting up the apps into separate projects, I'm not sure how to proceed with the class library that each project needs a copy of. For example, let's say that the changes to one of the apps (call it "project 1") requires a change to the class library... if the class library is in a separate project (call it "project 2"), it seems "messy" to me that project 1 would be dependent on the latest changes in project 2 in order to work properly. Or, do you simply make your changes to project 2 (the class library), check them in, and then copy the newly compiled dll into project 1 (but shouldn't the new copy of the dll being copied into project 1 be recorded in the SCC somehow). I'm getting confused even as I write this...
Thanks in advance for your help.
First, congratulations on deciding to finally use source control. I know changing your habits can be frustrating but in the long run I'm sure you'll see the benefits.
There's nothing wrong with a solution that has multiple projects in it. I generally keep mine to about 10 but that's simply to improve load times. If keeping them together works better for you, leave it that way. Usage of source control won't have any affect on this.
As far as the class library, I think what you need to do is change the way you go about making changes to the library project rather than how you use the projects that reference it. Implement unit testing on the library project to enforce backward compatibility so you know that dropping the latest version of the library won't break your app. You'll likely find this won't be true a few times but as you develop more unit tests to handle edge cases this will happen less and less.
You can have multiple projects in a single Visual Studio solution. What I've done in the past is to have both the ASP.NET project and the class library project in the same solution. You can have your ASP.NET project reference the class library project (Add Reference and then go to the Projects tab to show other projects in the same solution). That way, whenever you change the class library, the ASP.NET application will be build using the latest version of the class library. You can setup multiple solutions - one for each ASP.NET application with each solution including the class libary project.
You could also setup one large solution with all of your ASP.NET projects as well as your class library but that may get a bit hard to work with, especially with multiple developers working on the different ASP.NET pages.