Ok, so I'm looking for a bit of architecture guidance, my team is getting a chance to re-cast certain decisions with a new feature that we're building, and I wanted to see what SO thought :-) There are of course certain things that we're not changing, so the solution would have to fit in this model. Namely, that we've got an ASP.NET application, which uses web services to allow users to perform actions on the system.
The problem comes in because, as with many systems, different users need access to different functions. Some roles have access to Y button, and others have access to Y and B button, while another still only has access to B. Most of the time that I see this, developers just put in a mish-mosh of if statements to deal with the UI state. My fear is that left unchecked, this will become an unmaintainable mess, because in addition to putting authorization logic in the GUI, it needs to be put in the web services (which are called via ajax) to ensure that only authorized users call certain methods.
so my question to you is, how can a system be designed to decrease the random ad-hoc if statements here and there that check for specific roles, which could be re-used in both GUI/webform code, and web service code.
Just for clarity, this is an ASP.NET web application, using webforms, and Script# for the AJAX functionality. Don't let the script# throw you off of answering, it's not fundamentally different than asp.net ajax :-)
Moving from the traditional group, role, or operation-level permission, there is a push to "claims-based" authorization, like what was delivered with WCF.
Zermatt is the codename for the Microsoft class-library that will help developers build claims-based applications on the server and client. Active Directory will become one of the STS an application would be able to authorize against concurrently with your own as well as other industry-standard servers...
In Code Complete (p. 411) Steve McConnell gives the following advice (which Bill Gates reads as a bedtime story in the Microsoft commercial).
"used in appropriate circumstances, table driven code is simpler than complicated logic, easier to modify, and more efficient."
"You can use a table to describe logic that's too dynamic to represent in code."
"The table-driven approach is more economical than the previous approach [rote object oriented design]"
Using a table based approach you can easily add new "users"(as in the modeling idea of a user/agent along with it's actions). Its a good way to avoid many "if"s. And I've used it before for situations like yours, and it's kept the code nice and tidy.
Related
Our company has people in every catastrophic event here in the U.S. and parts of Canada. An example is they were quite prevalent in Katrina immediately after the event.
We are constructing an application to improve their job in the field which may be either ASP.NET or WPF, and the disconnect requirement makes us believe it will be a WPF application. Our people need to be able to create their jobs, provide all of the insurance and measurement data, and save it as if in the database whether or not the internet is available.
The issue we are trying to get our heads around is that when at catastrophic events our people need to be able to use our new application even when the internet is not available. (They were offline for 3 days in Katrina)
Has anyone else had to address requirements like this and suggestions on how they approached functioning on small-footprint devices while saving data as if they were still connected to the backend services and database? We also have to incorporate security into this as well, and do it well enough that their entered data loads into the connected database without issues.
Our longterm goal is to also provide this application for Android and IPad Tablet devices as well as laptops. Our initial desire for ASP.NET was it gave us an immediate application for the tablet environment. In the old application they have, they run a local server, run remote connections on the tablets and run the application through terminal server. Not pretty. Not pretty.
I feel this is a serious question that is not subjective so hopefully this won't get deleted.
Our current architecture on the server side is Entity Framework with a repository pattern, WCF services to satisfy CRUD requests returning composite data transfer objects, and a proxy for use by the clients.
I'm interested in hearing other developers' input and this design puzzle.
Additional Information Added to the Discussion
Lots of good information provided!!! I'll have to look at Microsoft Sync for sure. For the disconnected database I would be placing only list tables (enumerations) in the initial database. Jobs and, if needed, an item we call dry books, will be added for each client we are helping. (though I hope the internet returns by the time we are cleaning and drying out the homes) These are the tables that would then populate back to the host once we have a stable link. In the case of Katrina we also lost internet connectivity in our offices which meant the office provided no communication relief for days as well.
Last night I realized that our client proxy is the key to everything working! The client remains unaware of the fact that it is online or offline and leaves the synchronization process within that library. We are discovering how much data we are talking about today. I also want to make it clear that ASP.NET was a like-to-have but a thick client (actually WPF with XAML) may end up being our end state.
Now -- for multiple updates. The disconnected work will be going to individual homes by a single franchise. In fact our home office dispatches specific franchises to specific events. So we have a reduced likelihood (if any) of the problem of multiple people updating a record. The reason is that they are creating records for each job (person's home/office/business) and only that one franchise will deal with it. Of course this also means that if they are disconnected for days that the device that creates the job (record of who, where, condition, insurance company, etc) is also the only device that knows of the job. But that can be lived with. In fact we may be able to have a facility to sync the franchise devices on a hub.
I'm looking forward to hearing additional stories of how you've implemented your disconnected environment.
Thanks!!!
Looking at new technology from Microsoft
I was directed to look at a video from TechEd 2012 and thought I might have an answer. The talk was on using ASP.NET and MVC4 along with 2 libraries for disconnected behavior. At first I thought it would be great but then as it continued it worried me quite a bit.
First the use of a javascript backend to support disconnected I/O does not generate confidence. As a compiler guy (and one who wrote two interpretive languages) I really do not like having a critical business model reliant upon interpretive javascript. And script at that! It may be me but it just makes me shudder.
Then they show their "great"(???) programming model having your ViewModel exist as just javascript. I do not care for an application (asp.net and javascript) that can be, and may as well be (for lack of intellisense ) written in notepad.
No offense meant to any asp lovers, but a well written C# program that has been syntactically and type checked gives me stronger confidence in software than something written with a hope and prayer that a class namespace has been properly typed without any means of cross check. I've seen too many hours of debugging looking for a bug that ended up in a huge namespace with transposed ie in it's name. I ran my thought past the other senior developers in my group and we are all in consensus on this technology.
But we continue to look. (I feel this is becoming more of a diary than a question) :)
Looks like a perfect example for Microsoft Sync Framework
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sync/bb736753.aspx
A comprehensive synchronization platform that enables collaboration
and offline access for applications, services, and devices with
support for any data type, any data store, any transfer protocol, and
any network topology.
I often find that building a lightweight framework to fit my specific needs is more beneficial to me than using an existing one. However, always look at what's available and weigh the pros and cons before making that decision.
I haven't use the Microsoft Sync Framework, but it sounds like that's a good one to research first. If you have Sql Server Standard (or some other version other than the Express version) then replication might also be an option.
If you want to develop your own homegrown solution, then be sure to put lastupdated and dateadded fields on any tables that need to stay in sync. It doesn't 'sound' like your scenario will be burdened by concurrency issues (i.e. if person A and B both modify a field at the same time, who wins?). If that's the case then developing your own lightweight solution will be pretty straightforward.
As Jeremy pointed out, you will need a way to get the changes. In addition to using a web service, you can also use WCF which is similar to a web service in some ways. But my personal bias would be towards just accessing a SQL server remotely over the internet. The downside of that solution is added security concerns, while the upside is decreased development overhead (i.e. faster/easier development now and less maintenance over time). Also, the direct SQL solution is also assuming that this is an internal application... that you're in charge of all development and not working with 3rd parties who need access to your data and wouldn't be allowed to access it this way.
Not really a full answer but too much for a comment.
I have two apps one that synchs one way and the other two way.
I do a one way synch to client for disconnected operation. At the server full SQL Server and at the client Compact Edition. TimeStamp is a prefect for finding any rows that needs to be synched. I also don't copy the whole database as some of the largest table are non nonessential. The common use is the user marks identified records they want to synch.
If synch does what you need great +1 for Jakub. For me I don't have the option to synch the whole MSSQL both based on size and security.
Have another smaller application that synchs two way but in this case it has regions and update are only within the region. So a region only synchs their data and in disconnected mode they can only add new records. Update to an existing records must be performed in connected mode. That was mangeable. In that case MSSQL for the master and used XML for the client.
No news to you but the hard part of a raw synch is that two parties may have added or revised the same record.
Our client follows SOA principles and have design web services that are very fine grained like createCustomer, deleteCustomer, etc.
I am not sure if fine grained services are desirable as they create transactional related issues. for e.g. if a business requirement is every Customer must have a Address when it's created. So in this case, the presentation component will invoke createCustomer first and then createAddress. The services internally use simple JDBC to update the respective tables in db. As a service is invoked by external component, it has not way of fulfilling transactional requirement here i.e. if createAddress fails, createCustomer operation must be rolledback.
I guess, one of the approach to deal with this is to either design course grained services (that creates a Customer and associated Address in one single JDBC transaction) or
perhaps simple create a reversing service (deleteCustomer) that simply reverses the action of createCustomer.
any suggestions. thanks
The short answer: services should be designed for the convenience of the service client. If the client is told "call this, then cdon't forget to call that" you're making their lives too difficult. There should be a coarse-grained service.
A long answer: Can a Customer reasonably be entered with no Address? So we call
createCustomer( stuff but no address)
and the result is a valid (if maybe not ideal) state for a customer. Later we call
changeCustomerAddress ( customerId, Address)
and now the persisted customer is more useful.
In this scenario the API is just fine. The key point is that the system's integrity does not depend upon the client code "remembering" to do something, in this case to add the address. However, more likely we don't want a customer in the system without an address in which case I see it as the service's responsibility to ensure that this happens, and to give the caller the fewest possibilities of getting it wrong.
I would see a coarse-grained createCompleteCustomer() method as by far the best way to go - this allows the service provider to solve the problem once rather then require every client programmer to implement the logic.
Alternatives:
a). There are web Services specs for Atomic Transactions and major vendors do support these specs. In principle you could actually implement using fine-grained methods and true transactions. Practically, I think you enter a world of complexity when you go down this route.
b). A stateful interface (work, work, commit) as mentioned by #mtreit. Generally speaking statefulness either adds complexity or obstructs scalability. Where does the service hold the intermediate state? If in memeory, then we require affinity to a particular service instance and hence introduce scaling and reliability problems. If in some State or Work-in-progress database then we have significant additional implementation complexity.
Ok, lets start:
Our client follows SOA principles and
have design web services that are very
fine grained like createCustomer,
deleteCustomer, etc.
No, the client has forgotten to reach the SOA principles and put up what most people do - a morass of badly defined interfaces. For SOA principles, the clinent would have gone to a coarser interface (such asfor example the OData meachsnism to update data) or followed the advice of any book on multi tiered architecture written in like the last 25 years. SOA is just another word for what was invented with CORBA and all the mistakes SOA dudes do today where basically well known design stupidities 10 years ago with CORBA. Not that any of the people doing SOA today has ever heard of CORBA.
I am not sure if fine grained services
are desirable as they create
transactional related issues.
Only for users and platforms not supporting web services. Seriously. Naturally you get transactional issues if you - ignore transactional issues in your programming. The trick here is that people further up the food chain did not, just your client decided to ignore common knowledge (again, see my first remark on Corba).
The people designing web services were well aware of transactional issues, which is why web service specification (WS*) contains actually mechanisms for handling transactional integrity by moving commit operations up to the client calling the web service. The particular spec your client and you should read is WS-Atomic.
If you use the current technology to expose your web service (a.k.a. WCF on the MS platform, similar technologies exist in the java world) then you can expose transaction flow information to the client and let the client handle transaction demarcation. This has its own share iof problems - like clients keeping transactions open maliciously - but is still pretty much the only way to handle transactions that do get defined in the client.
As you give no platform and just mention java, I am pointing you to some MS example how that can look:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752261.aspx
Web services, in general, are a lot more powerfull and a lot more thought out than what most people doing SOA ever think about. Most of the problems they see have been solved a long time ago. But then, SOA is just a buzz word for multi tiered architecture, but most people thinking it is the greatest thing since sliced bread just dont even know what was around 10 years ago.
As your customer I would be a lot more carefull about the performance side. Fine grained non-semantic web services like he defines are a performance hog for non-casual use because the amount of times you cross the network to ask / update small small small small stuff makes the network latency kill you. Creating an order for like 10 goods can easily take 30-40 network calls in this scenario which will really possibly take a lot of time. SOA preaches, ever since the beginning (if you ignore the ramblings of those who dont know history) to NOT use fine grained calls but to go for a coarse grained exchange of documents and / or a semantical approach, much like the OData system.
If transactionality is required, a coarser-grained single operation that can implement transaction-semantics on the server is definitely going to be much simpler to implement.
That said, certainly it is possible to construct some scheme where the target of the operations is not committed until all of the necessary fine-grained operations have succeeded. For instance, have a Commit operation that checks some flag associated with the object on the server; the flag is not set until all of the necessary steps in the transaction have completed, and Commit fails if the flag is not set.
Of course, if having light-weight, fine grained operations is an important design requirement, perhaps the need to have transactionality should be re-thought.
I have some internal-facing ASP.NET web services that have had numerous API additions over the years. Some of the original web methods, while still available for consumption, have recommended replacements available. I would like to steer consuming clients toward using these new methods so I can retire and eventually remove their elders.
If this were a client API rather than a web service API, I'd just mark the offending methods with the obsolete attribute. But .NET attributes do not get serialized and are not visible to consuming developers when they add or refresh web references.
What techniques are recomended for obsoleting ASP.NET web methods? Is there anything built into the tooling (VS2005-2010)? I don't want to break any of the existing clients, so I can't simply remove the web methods outright or change their internal behavior to reprot their usage as erroneous.
Tim, the short answer to this is unfortunately that you have to contact those clients and communicate the change with them and agree on timelines etc. There might be something that you can do to smooth the process over for them, particularly if they are not IT savvy clients and had to get their applications built by external contractors.
You can butter this up any way you like for them really, from the system is going to be replaced, to we are doing it bigger, better and faster.
Additionally you can build in code to slow them down, NOT RECOMMENDED, but then when they inquire you can give them the, we don't support that system any longer, it has been replaced by system 'X'.
If the new methods you are talking about are still just web-methods, you can just point the old ones to the new ones, and let the clients use the old one.
Another option is to identify the clients stuck on the old methods, get their IP addresses and lock it down so only they can use it, this way you ensure new clients will not attempt to connect to the old methods.
Other than that, I cannot think of anything that will not be a pain or difficult for both yo and the client.
It's a somewhat broad question, and for that I apologise, however I am struggling to get to grips with an approach for turning an overly complex (read: poorly designed) ASP.NET WebForms application into something more maintainable. I believe it can be transformed into something which is largely event-driven.
I don't mean events as in the .NET coded event, but the conceptual business process events, such as creating a new customer or completing an order.
In principal, I would like to be able to register a piece of code to be called whenever an event of a particular nature occurs. Ideally, there would be some well-defined mechanism to filter the events, so that the code is only called for events that meet certain criteria.
At present, I haven't found any frameworks that use this approach, which makes me worry I'm on a doomed path.
Are there any frameworks, patterns or good reads available for how you can approach this sort of design?
Is there a good reason why I should or shouldn't be attempting a solution this way?
The EDA Pattern seems ideal for what you are doing.
Personally I can't see past the ASP.NET MVC Framework for web applications.
Do you actually mean service bus frameworks?
Here are some of them - NServiceBus, Mass Transit, Rhino Service Bus
You might check out Biztalk for a message based infrastructure and a scalable workflow implementation...
I think it might be able to help you.
DDD group has a lot of discussion about this. If you can pay I would get Udi Dahan or Greg Young to put you on the right path. Basically you would identify those events and make them first class citizens of your model and then use service bus to send messages when these eve
ts occur.your domain or even other services could subscribe to those events nad take appropriate action.
We have two client apps (a web app and an agent app) accessing methods on the same service, but with slightly different requirements. My team wants to control behaviour on the service side by passing in a ApplicationType parameter to every method - which is essentially an enum containing the name of the calling client application - which is then used as a key for a database lookup to configure the service with client-specific options.
Something about this makes me uneasy as I don't think the service should really have to be aware of which client is calling it. I'm being told that it's easier to do it this way than pass a load of options dynamically through the method call.
Is there anything wrong with the client application telling the service who they are? Or is there really no difference between passing a config key versus a set of parameterized options?
One immediate problem I can see is that if we ever opened the service to another client run by a third party, we'd have to maintain their configuration settings locally for them. At the moment we own both client apps so it's not so much of a problem.
How would you do it?
In a layered solution, you should always consider your layers as onion-like layers, and dependencies should always go inwards, never outwards.
So your GUI/App layer should depend on the businesslogic layer, the businesslogic layer should depend on the data access layer, and similar.
Unless you categorize the clients (web, win, wpf, cli), or generalize it with client profiles (which client applications can configure), I would never pass in the name of the calling application, as this would make the business logic layer aware of and dependent upon the outside layer.
What kind of differences are we talking about that would depend on the type of application? If you elaborate a bit on the differences here, perhaps someone can come up with some helpful advice on other ways to solve this.
But I would definitely look for other ways before going down your described path.
Can't you create two different services, one for each application? The two services will share a lot of code or call a single internal service with different parameterization depending on what outer service was called.
From a design perspective, this is no different than having users with different profiles. From a security perspective, I hope your applications are doing something to identify themselves, lest users of one application figure out a way to invoke the other applications logic as a hack. (Image a HR application being used by the mafia and a bank at the same time, one customer would be interesting in hacking the other customer's application on a shared application host)
In .net the design doesn't feel this way because the credentials live on the thread (i.e. when you set the IIPrincipal, that info rides on the thread-- it is communicated along with each method call, but not as a parameter.)
Maybe what you are looking for in terms of a more elegant design is an ApplicationIdentity attribute. You'd have to write a custom one, I don't know of one in the framework right now.
This is a hard topic to discuss without a solid example.
You are right for feeling that way. Sending in the client type to change behaviour is not correct. It's not a bad idea for logging... but that's about it.
Here is what I would do:
Review each method to see what needs to be different and why.
Create different methods for different usages. The method name should be self explanatory. If you ever need to break compatibility, you have more control (assuming you're not using a versioning system which would be overkill for an in-house-only service).
In some cases request parameters (flags/enum values) are more appropriate.
In some cases knowing the operating environment is more appropriate (especially for data security). The operating environment almost always sent during a login request. Something like "attended"/"secure" (agent client) vs "unattended"/"not secure" (web client). Now you must exchange a session key (HTTP cookie or an application level session id). Sessions obviously doesn't work if you need to be 100% stateless -- especially if you want to scale-out without session replication... if you have that requirement, send a structure in every request.
Think of requests like functions in your code. You wouldn't put a magic parameter that changes the behaviour of the function. You would create multiple functions that each behave differently. Whoever is using the function makes the decision which one to call.
So why is client type so wrong? Client type has no specific meaning on its own. It has many meanings and they may change over time. It's simply informational which is why it is a handy thing to log. An operating environment does have a specific meaning.
Here is a scenario to consider: What if a new client type is developed that is slightly different in a way that would break compatibility with the original request? Now you have two requests. 2 clients use Request A and 1 client uses Request B. If you pass in a client type to each request, the server is expected to work for every possible client type. Much harder to test and maintain!!