I'm building a project using mvc framework.
I'm at a point where i need to decide if I should separate frontend and backoffice to two mvc applications
This is to make my solution tidy and well structured. But at the same time I don't want to increase maintenance on the long run. Can you please share with me your experience on the long term when application becomes quite large, if it is better to have two seperate projects or just have a Backoffice folder under the main web project.
Another concern that I am realizing is how do I handle images between these two projects.. User uploads photos from backoffice to a folder that reside under backoffice application then how do I display these photos through frontend or vice versa..
Thanks
One way to think about this is to ask "Are the fundamental actions and desires of the users different". Then ask, "What's the scale of the back office site". The larger, the more likely I'd split it. If it was just a handful of admin pages or a couple reports, I'd live with it in the original project. In addition, "Do the front and back offices need to scale at different rates?" 1 million hits / hour vs 20 fulfillment staff to make numbers up out of no where. And thirdly, "Do the front and back office customers live in different security domains" Being able to deploy the back office code behind the firewall would make it a tocuh safer.
There is overhead for the developer, but sometimes that's okay if you get clarity, security, or simplicity.
A suggestion, assuming you want to split it, split into three projects: Two web front ends and a library that holds shared code and resources, like some basic database access code. Actually, three may be two few projects if you want to share helpers, etc.
I'm a huge fan of separating the apps as the advantages tend to outweigh the advantages in most cases. Ball points out a number of the big points, mainly revolving around the different use cases and security contexts. The other big kickers for me are:
a) You can get moving on the back office stuff while some of the front-end details are still up for discussion. IE--you are not blocked by marketing being all wishy/washy about what template and color scheme to use.
b) You can make different technology choices depending on app. EG, your back office could use traditional ASP.NET webforms because you are not concerned with SEO and other webby behavior as well as can guarantee what browsers and bandwidth capabilities you will have to deal with.
Overhead-wise, there really isn't too much additional work IMHO. And most of those problems are pretty solvable. For example, your images issue could be handled by either storing the images in a database or making a common file store that both apps could reference.
Related
I've read a lot on this topic, but cannot find out a clear answer on how to structure a complex project around symfony2...
My new project will be structured with :
1) one back office website hosted on a subdomain of our partner's website
2) one partner's website
3) one (or more) customer's website
Of course, each of these websites will share logics from "core" bundles (i.e : core entities, core user logic, etc...), but they also need to have custom routing, custom templates, and so on...
I think that I have 2 options :
1) define 1 bundle per website and define routing based on the hostname, but it seems that it is not recommended
2) implement one SF2 instance by website, and copy/deploy core bundles into each instances
What is the best solution ? And is there another solution on how to implement some kind of complex project?
It's difficult to say which is best for your particular situation: I've used both approaches for projects. I actually have one project which uses both approaches simultaneously, consisting of two Symfony applications: One generating the main website, the other generating a separate application containing some other functionality, with separate bundles for the "user" functionality and the "admin" functionality. We used Varnish to dispatch requests to the correct application, based on the URL path.
In my experience I've found that having multiple applications adds a degree of complexity to the overall solution. This makes it more complicated to work with and to hold the "big picture" of the whole system in your head. There's also potentially a cost implication, if you want to run your applications on separate servers. You also need to consider that there's overhead on getting the whole solution set up for local development, which is definitely a concern if you're in a team of more than one.
The flip-side of this is that working on one part of the whole solution (i.e. one app) is often more straightforward: Configuration values/dependencies for the other applications won't need to be set up, you only need to get working the bare minimum for that one standalone app. This approach also affords you a lot of flexibility and the ability to concentrate changes on one particular area of the solution. For example: If you wanted to make some changes to the partner's website, if that was generated by a completely separate application, it becomes straightforward to do this. You know that there won't be knock-on effects to your other applications. This goes for shared code too, providing you version it correctly: With composer, your separate applications can depend on different versions of your shared bundles/libraries if necessary. Another benefit of having separate applications is the ability to scale them independently of each other. If your customer website gets much more traffic than your partner's site, you can set it up on better hardware/virtualised instances, giving you finer grained control over performance/costs.
Sharing code is relatively straightforward with Composer and is not one of the main concerns here, in my opinion: Think carefully about the above factors when making your decision.
Say you have a large Web site, containing several discrete applications that run in the same site to do various things. You don't want to manage everything as a single project, so you break them apart, work on them in total isolation from one another, and just deploy them separately into the same runtime environment.
These applications will run in the same process. No virtual directories or app isolation. They will share things like session, cache, cookies, etc.
Sure, the code-behinds and class-libraries are just DLLs in the bin folder, but what of the presentation-level stuff that has to integrate in the runtime environment? What about sharing of the code-level resources I mentioned above -- cookies, session, cache, etc.? What about base page classes?
Example: it strikes me that every sub-app needs to be "master page aware" -- it needs to know where the master page will be located, and what ContentPlaceHolders are available, because the sub-apps Web forms will need to reference this stuff.
Any other thoughts here? Assume the sub-apps will share the same master page, theme, and everything else in the presentation layer, so they appear to be a seamlessly integrated part of the whole. But they will be worked on in different Visual Studio projects, by different dev teams that know nothing about one another except what's absolutely necessary.
Anyone want to share some best practices here?
You don't want to manage everything as a single project, so you break them apart, work on them in total isolation from one another, and just deploy them separately into the same runtime environment.
Why work in isolation? Establish a repository for the entire solution including all projects. Whatever change is made it is immediately available to all developers. With your approach it will be a nightmare to come.
Consider splitting responsibility by pages. One team does one segment, the other does the other one.
Another option is to let each team develop their part as a user control. You can easily assemble those together to represent a complete product.
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
We need to develop quite a powerful web application for an investment bank. The bank IT would like us to build it on top of the SharePoint platform, but we would prefer to do pure ASP.NET programming.
The web-app should have the following characteristics.
1) It will be a site for bank's clients that will allow them to view their stock portfolios, get miscellaneous reports with graphs and charts, etc.
2) The web-app will also allow clients to send orders to the bank to buy stocks and perform other financial operations.
3) The number of users will be approximately 3 000 000 (total) and 20 000 at any one time.
We have never made any SharePoint programming, but as far as I know, SharePoint is primarily designed to create intranet sites for colleagues to communicate with each other and work more efficiently, to maintain a document library, etc.
However, the bank IT told us that SharePoint has in fact lots of other features that will help us make the project more efficiently - for example, it seems that SharePoint has some built-in scalability and high availability technologies.
I heard saying that SharePoint development is very tedious, that the platform cannot be very easily customized, etc.
The question is: is it better to create our web-app on pure ASP.NET and deal with scalability and other issues ourselves, or base it on SharePoint - taking into account that the web-app we need to create is non-standard and complex?
Thank you,
Mikhail.
UPDATE
In the answers, someone suggested using ASP.NET MVC. My another question is: should we use "classic" ASP.NET or ASP.NET MVC for such project (if we leave out the SharePoint option)?
Do you need document management? Do you need version management? Do you need to create "sites"? Do you need audience filtering? Do you need ECM (fancy word for CMS), Do you need collaboration stuff on your site? If your answer is no then SharePoint is not for you.
You said "We have never made any SharePoint programming" and for that reason alone I think you should not use SharePoint. You also say that your app is going to be "non-standard" and complex, another reason not to use SharePoint.
Sounds like you know ASP.NET so I would advice to stick with ASP.NET or ASP.NET MVC.
Hope this helps
The answer is simple, you should go with what you know. If you prefer to do it in ASP.NET then, that is what you should go with. Trying to learn a new technology on that size of a project will almost certainty cause you severe problems when trying to develop it. Can sharepoint scale to that number of users, probably, but you don't know how to make it do that. That is the real key.
They are correct SharePoint does have a lot of functionality out of the box, but that doesn't mean that it will make you more efficient, because you don't know all of the APIs etc. to access.
Actually, if you want to know the way to cheat. If they force you into using it, you can run ASP.NET applications under SharePoint (well kind of). You can tell SharePoint to essentially ignore a path in the site and use regular ASP.NET as a web application just like any other site does. Really, this isn't using SharePoint, but it can get you out of a bind, in the "Needs to use SharePoint to make them happy scenario".
Mayo suggested contacting MS. I have a feeling they already have a relationship with the bank and have provided some insight about the project. I would contact: http://www.mindsharp.com/ and see if they can help you out. They are a training company, but I bet that the owners would be willing to help consult, and I haven't found anyone with more knowledge on SharePoint than Todd Bleeker.
I'll not go into the merits of sharepoint, but suffice it to say that I have been developing in sharepoint since it was known as "digital dashboard" - it was just a javascript-encrusted today page for outlook. With respect to its .NET incarnations, it has taken me about 3 years to become what some might call "expert" on SharePoint 2007/MOSS.
First up, let me give you some warnings concerning the politics of these kind of jobs. As a contractor, ALL of my jobs over the last 6 years - covering shaerpoint 2003 and 2007 - WITHOUT fail, have been getting about me on site with a client who has demanded sharepoint, and a development shop with decent ASP.NET developers who have become hopelessly lost and more than likely have blown 95% of the budget on the last 5% of the project because they have embarked on writing custom extensions to the platform without fully understanding the product.
If clients, and the shops who service them, spent more time understand the product and studied it to see how they could change/streamline their business processes & requirements slightly to suit sharepoint instead of being rigid in their specs (that were ALWAYS written with next to zero real experience of the platform) and deciding to get custom development done, then more sharepoint projects would be delivered on time and on budget. Sadly, this is not the case.
So, number one: SharePoint 2007 is an excellent product, but please, for the love of jeebus, find yourselves some top gun sharepoint developers who really understands the product before you embark on this journey. If you don't, you will all go down in flames.
-Oisin
What a load of CRAP that sharepoint isn't cut out for what the op wants to use it for. Especially the "Do not get yourself wrapped up in SharePoint" comment from ChaosPandion. Maybe he thought it to difficult and gave up...
Sure SharePoint development takes some getting used to, but it is able to what is wanted by the op most definately. SharePoint is built using ASP.NET so anything you do in ASP.NET can be used / ported to SharePoint. It is not a standalone product, but a DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM. It will scale to serve that many users, using multiple WFE's (Web Front Ends) and a SQL Cluster as backend.
The question here is: is sharepoint the most suited platform for building this site? Then I would have to answer, probably not, seeing as the wanted functionality is almost all custom development. If you plan on doing web content management as well, then yes, SharePoint is definately worth looking into. Also, SharePoint takes away all (or at least most :-D) authorisation and authentication wories. It is Department of Defense certified. And if the offered out of the box security is not enough, just write an authentication provider (seeing as SharePoint uses ASP.NET's provider model).
To answer your questions:
The bank IT told us that SharePoint has in fact lots of other features that will help us make the project more efficiently - for example, it seems that SharePoint has some built-in scalability and high availability technologies.
SharePoint is farm based, to which you can add machines, having each machine perform a different task, which means either app server, index server, WFE, document conversion services., WFE's can be behind a load balancer to distribute requests. Also I want to mention the web content management again.
I heard saying that SharePoint development is very tedious, that the platform cannot be very easily customized, etc.
Like I said, SharePoint is based on ASP.NET, so it is as much customizable as ASP.NET is. You could even create an ASP.NET web site, put all UI in Controls and then use those is SharePoint, maybe even have the controls use it's own database. As for it being tedious, not really. It's just DIFFERENT and deployment / testing is not like normal deployment / testing. SharePoint uses so called solution files (.wsp files), to package up functionality and deploy it to the server. This IMHO makes it possible to deploy functionality in a very modular way. Furthermore, there are loads of cool open source projects out there that make sharepoint development much easier and also provide cool extensions to "pimp" your site and make it more fun and easy to use for end-users.
Nuff said....
SharePoint development can be tedious but I'd hardly say the platform cannot be easily customized. I recently began developing with it full time and so far, I impressed at it's flexibility and suitability for my application but my needs are quite different from what you've described.
I understand 2007 is a vast improvement over 2003 so perhaps your information is only outdated. I hear 2010 is going to again be a significant improvement.
It's your job to deliver the functionality that the customer desires. If they desire a SharePoint solution, unless there's some particular reason why SharePoint really is a weaker model, that's what you should be able to deliver. In the event that SharePoint isn't a good fit, you need to be able to explain why to the bank's satisfaction. I'm not convinced "We don't know SharePoint" is an acceptable response in this situation: the bank's inclination should, at that point, be to find someone who knows both technologies well enough to deliver a product in SharePoint or better explain why SharePoint isn't actually what they want.
UPDATE: After looking at this more I would add that I do not believe that SharePoint is for you. As I mention below SharePoint is for collaboration. If the users that come to the site require an isolated experience then SharePoint is more overhead than you need.
SharePoint is built on top of ASP.NET so you have everything that you want to do with ASP.NET in addition to what SharePoint provides. Anyone who says that it is difficult is trying to make it that way. You can deploy stand alone custom pages with 100% of your own code and it will run under sharepoint, or you can create new application pages that also contain any code you want to write, or you can simply add your own webparts that can be added to any page you choose with 100% of your own code.
Here is just one example.
Creating an Application Page in Windows SharePoint Services 3.0
What SharePoint offers on top of that is a whole different paradigm on collaboration tools. If you wish to leverage it (if not the cost on return is somewhat limited) you can build amazingly complex and integrated solutions that is build around the aggregation of data from across an enterprise.
That being said, do not go into it lightly. If deployed wrong or with a half understanding of where SharePoint excels and where it does not will result in a diaster. Unless you have the time to understand the core concepts of SharePoint I would warn against it but your client is right. If you do build it in SharePoint you get a great deal more flexibility. One right off the bat is the ability to mix authentication modes. I designed a solution that mixed custom forms authentication with an LDAP backend with Windows Authentication. Anyone could visit the same pages but your authenticated account could come from two different locations.
This is a matter of what kind of concerns you want to have in the application:
Building it to look and function your way, go with sharepoint.
Building it to have infrastructure for authentication, permissions, http/web security, scalability, backup, database maintenance PLUS getting it to look and function your way (but now way more under your control), go with a more pure .NET approach.
I would pick the one I am best at, as Kevin said above.
Edit
More about Kevins post: you can also have your application under sharepoint but with full access to the API, in my projects we do it as a normal ASP.NET application, with own masterpages and everything, but we still use the authentication, lists and doc libraries for uploads, roleassignments for permissions etc. Its a very viable hybrid.
You said,
I heard saying that SharePoint
development is very tedious, that the
platform cannot be very easily
customized, etc.
You have been misinformed about SharePoint. All SharePoint pages are ASP.NET pages. You can customize any of them, either directly, or by using Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer, which is free.
Get started at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/default.aspx.
SharePoint is a lot of work and with that amount of users I personally (and being a SharePoint developer) wouldn't bother.
I would go down the ASP.MVC route in all honesty and not because it's new and the latest buzz technology. I would use it because it's hands down faster. This site for example is written in ASP.NET MVC and it handles all these requests per day on I think 3 servers. 2 front end and 1 database. Correct my if I'm wrong with that.
The problem with asking whether Sharepoint is easy to customize is that there's a wide range of levels of customization people are experienced with. And for some reason, most people also seem to think that whatever level they customized Sharepoint to is the extent to which anyone else would also try to customize Sharepoint.
It's hard to talk about degrees of customization in concrete terms. What is "customization" to me is wrangling with the core DAL, fighting with bugs in the CAML to SQL query optimizers, overriding the SPListItem hydration pipeline, etc. To others, "customization" might mean building some web part widgets and deploying them in a WSP. If you find that there is some impedance mismatch between your logical model and Sharepoint's working model, you will have a really hard time reconciling the two.
Welcome to the dark land of politics.
It's worth making sure that your team properly evaluate and understand any compromises that SharePoint will have you make. Asking here is a good start. Things I'd look at include:
What's the whole solution going to include? Often the administration of a site can involve as much or more development work as the front end. While the 3M+ user front end is the glamorous part it may not be the bulk of the work.
Are there reference sites for 20K+ simultaneous user SharePoint sites? Honestly? What kind of hardware did that require? Is that available?
Get a small group of experienced contractors in for a few weeks to properly estimate the work, both on ASP.NET MVC and SharePoint. Make sure they've worked on large sites. (There's plenty of contractors around at the moment!)
Also, anticipate failure. Have a fall-back option:
If the MVC technologists win out, expect heat from senior management, and possibly even a skunk-works we'll-do-it-properly-anyway project that duplicates your efforts.
If you do end up with SharePoint, listen very carefully to users throughout the development process and be prepared to create Web parts, MVC pages or whathaveyou to address problem points.
I've been in a similar situation where it turned out that there was heavy vendor influence at a very senior level. The senior team had bought into SharePoint and required it to be used for all internal systems; the OCTO (Office of the Chief Technologist) had mandated open-source technologies. It was fun to watch the fur fly in the middle.
(Our option in the end was to use a service-based architecture based on REST, which effectively booted the current version of SharePoint out of the system altogether.)
I would build this on SharePoint. It is quite suitable for big sites and many sites have already been built on it: topsharepoint.com
SharePoint (like all complex applications) does require sufficient knowledge that you do not seem to have at the moment which is a big risk in my mind. Don't listen to the nay-sayers though.. lack of knowledge is a common problem for devs dealing with SharePoint but it doesn't mean you can't make it do whatever you want.
Regardless, what other options do you have? I think the days of building completely custom CMS's have passed just as building completely custom Intranets are not cost effective anymore. There are many competitors to what they want to do with SharePoint (Umbraco, Sitecore, Sitefinity, etc) and most of them seem better than 100% custom.
So the answer might be neither ASP.NET or Sharepoint..
We need to increase our knowledge on deployment of ASP.NET Web sites/Web App. We are getting increasingly bigger and more traffic and need a more professional approach. Not too mention, we are also moving up to multiple database/multiple back end/ multiple front end server deployments and we just don't want to screw it up.
What type of skills should we be looking for and is there a typical title people with these skills use?
Thanks,
Actually, We have most of the talents the two answers mention, what we are looking for is I guess what Dave calls the web server guru. I simply want someone to handle the deployment aspect. The developers we have need to be working on their end of it not trying to figure out dpeloyment best practices. Also, we may end up with multiple projects and teams and I don't think each team having a seperate person rolling their own solutions would be as good as 1 dedicated resource for all the teams.
If you're looking to take an ASP.NET application to the next level, you need the development talent.
At least four years of intensive ASP.NET development experience.
A current certification to go with the experience would be good, but don't take the cert over the experience.
Find someone familiar with the techniques used in your app- if it's a Webforms app, don't go looking for an MVC wizard unless he/she also has the Webforms chops, etc.
It sounds like you may be handling the hosting yourself. If this is the case, you may also need to either hire a webserver guru or look into managed hosting. Don't be snookered into thinking you can get your dev to care and feed the hosting environment, it's too much work for one person.
Sounds like you will need at least three people, as the skills may not typically be what one person can do.
You may need a database administrator, to ensure that your multiple databases stay in sync, or backed up properly and configured correctly.
You will need a sysadmin to set up the multiple webservers and to ensure that all the hardware and infrastructure is configured properly.
And, you will need .NET developer that knows ASP.NET as well as the database layer.
If you were hosted then the first two you don't need as your hosting site would be responsible.
If you went with cloud computing then the same, you don't need the first two.
But, regardless, sounds like you need the third.
For the developer, you need to be careful about what skills you need, for example, C# for 4 yrs, ASP.NET for 2yrs, if you need javascript or css then specify that. If you are using any particular libraries then specify that.