I have finally decided to hop up on the train of MVC 2.
Now I have been doing a lot of reading lately and following is the architecture which I think will be good enough for most Business Web Applications.
Layered Architecture:-
Model (layer which communicates with Database). EF4
Repository (Layer which communicates with Model and includes all the queries)
Business Layer (Validations, Helper Functions, Calls to repository)
Controllers (Controls the flow of the application and is responsible for providing data to the view from the Business Layer.)
Views (UI)
Now I have decided to create a separate project for each layer (Just to respect the separation of concerns dilemma. Although I know it's not necessary but I think it makes the project look more professional :-)
I am using AutoMetaData t4 template for Validation. I also came across FluentValidation but cant find much on it. Which one should I go with?
Which View Engine to go for?
Razor View Engine Was Love at first sight. But it's still in beta and I think it won't be easy to find examples of it. Am I right?
Spark .. I can't find much on it either and don't want to get stuck somewhere in the middle crying for help when there is no one to listen...:-(
T4 templates auto generate views and I can customize them to generate the views the way I want? Will this be possible with razor and spark or do I have to create them manually?
Is there any way to Auto generate the repositories?
I would really appreciate it if I can see a project based on the architecture above.
Kindly to let me know if it's a good architecture to follow.
I have some confusion on the business layer like is it really necessary?
This is a very broad question. I decided to use Fluent NHibernate's autoconfig feature for a greenfield application, and was quite impressed. A lot of my colleagues use CakePHP, and it needed very little configuration to get it to generate a database schema compatible with the default conventions cake uses, which is great for us.
I highly suggest the book ASP.NET MVC2 in Action. This book does a good job at covering the ecosystem of libraries that are used in making a maintainable ASP.NET MVC application.
As for the choice of view engines, that can depend on your background. I personally prefer my view to look as much like the HTML as possible, so I would choose Spark. On the other hand if you are used to working with ASP.NET classic, the WebForms view engine may get you up and running fastest.
Kindly to let me know if its a good architecture to follow?
It's a fine start - the only thing I would suggest you add is a layer of abstraction between your Business Logic and Data Access (i.e: Dependency Inversion / Injection) - see this: An Introduction to Dependency Inversion.
i know its not necessary but i think it makes the project looks more professional :-)
Ha! Usually you'll find that a lot of "stuff" isn't necessary - right up until the moment when it is, at which point it's usually too late.
Re View Engines: I'm still a newbie to ASP.NET MVC myself and so aren't familiar with the view engines your talking about; if I were you I'd dream up some test scenarios and then try tackling them with each product so you can directly compare them. Often, you need to take things for a test drive to be more comfortable - although this might take time, but it's usually worth it.
Edit:
If i suggest this layer to my PM and give him the above two reasons then i don't think he will accept it
Firstly, PM's are not tech leads (usually); you have responsibility for the design of the solution - not the PM. This isn't uncommon, in my experience most of the time the PM isn't even aware they are encroaching on your turf that isn't theres. It's not that I'm a "political land grabber" but I just tend to think of "separation of concerns" and, well, I'm sure you understand.
As the designer / architect it's up to you to interpret requirements and (taking business priorities into account) come up with solution that provides the best 'platform' going forward.
(Regarding DI) My question is , is it really worth it?
If you put a gun to my head I would say yes, however the real world is a little more complex.
If you answer yes to any of these questions then its more likely using DI would be a good idea:
The system is non-trivial
The expected life of the system is more than (not sure what the right figure is here, there probably isn't one, so I'm going to put a stake in the ground at) 2 years.
The system and/or its requirements are fluid.
Splitting up the work (BL / DAL) into different teams would be advantageous to the project (perhaps you're part of a distributed team).
The system is intended for a market with a diverse technical landscape (e.g: not everyone will want to use MS SQL).
You want to perform quality testing (this would make it easier).
The system is large / complex, so splitting up functionality and putting it into other systems is a possibility.
You want to offer more than one way to store data (say a file based repository for free, and a database driven repository for a fee).
Business drivers / environment are volatile - what if they came to you and said "this is excellent but now we want to offer a cloud-based version, can you put it on Azure?"
Id also like to point out that whilst there's definitely a learning curve involved it's not that huge, and once you're up-to-speed you'll still be at least as fast as you are now; or at worst you;ll take a little longer but you'll be providing much more value (with relatively less effort).
In terms of how much effort is involved...
One-Off Tasks (beyond getting the team up to speed):
Writting a Provider Loader or picking DI Framework. Once you've done this it will be reusable in all your projects.
'New' Common Tasks (assuming you're following the approach taken in the article):
Defining interface (on paper) - this is something you'll be doing right now anyway, except that you might not realise it. Basically it's OO Design, but as it's going to be the formal interface between two or more packages you need to give it some thought (and yes you can still refactor it - but ideally the interface should be "stable" and not change a lot; if it does change it's better to 'add' than to 'remove or change' existing members).
Writting interface code. This is very fast (minutes not hours), as you're not writting any implementation; and when you go to implement you can use tools provided by your IDE to generate code-stubs based on the interface.
Things you do now that you'd do differently:
Instantiating a variable (in your BL classes) to hold the provider, probably via a factory. Writting this shouldn't take long (again, minutes not hours) and it's fairly simple code to copy, paste & refactor where required.
Writing the DAL code: should be the same as before.
Sometimes it is way more easy to learn patterns from code : Sharp Architecture is a concrete implementation of good practices in MVC, using DDD.
Related
I am about to start a project that I hope will some day require the capacity for scaling. The key question for me is: should I invest the effort to design for this eventuality now, or should I cross that bridge when I get there?
I know how these things go: everyone thinks their project might scale, but most projects never do.
Is there a set of best practices that will allow you to scale more easily at a later stage, while not investing too much in something that may never be needed?
Obviously I have no experience with scalable web sites. Currently I am leaning towards Scala / Play! / Akka. From what I can glean from the Akka website, it is very suitable for this kind of project (in that it provides a toolset that allows development on a single machine and scaling out to an arbitrary number of machines).
The project is a consumer-facing web site that involves some user interaction (comments, messages, voting etc.). The main focus is editorial, though. It's no Facebook :)
Not being experienced in any of these technologies (my experience mainly coming from PHP, AS3, Objective-C), I probably have a little too much on my plate right now. But then I am not going to go at it right away. I am aware that I need to get some experience using Scala and Play! first.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Start out by simply designing you model, build unit tests for that and then set your presentation layer on top of it. As long as your model is sensible, it will be easy to scale Play out to any number of machines. If you go for the build in JPA support, you can always deal with the question of which DB to go for.
You have larger things on your plate for the time being. So just make sure your design is consistent and sensible, then scaling will not be a problem.
You've got a head start by using a stateless web framework like Play! that won't get in the way when you need to scale. As ExxKA says, keep your model clean and sensible. This will help you keep the advantage of complexity.
Don't consider it a failure when you need to refactor your code - or even rewrite important parts of it. This is a natural part of a growing project, like a snake shedding its skin.
There are inevitably things that you'll learn in the process of writing the project, so don't try to anticipate them all right now.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Can someone please explain me what a software framework is? Why do we need a framework? What does a framework do to make programming easier?
I'm very late to answer it. But, I would like to share one example, which I only thought of today. If I told you to cut a piece of paper with dimensions 5m by 5m, then surely you would do that. But suppose I ask you to cut 1000 pieces of paper of the same dimensions. In this case, you won't do the measuring 1000 times; obviously, you would make a frame of 5m by 5m, and then with the help of it you would be able to cut 1000 pieces of paper in less time. So, what you did was make a framework which would do a specific type of task. Instead of performing the same type of task again and again for the same type of applications, you create a framework having all those facilities together in one nice packet, hence providing the abstraction for your application and more importantly many applications.
Technically, you don't need a framework. If you're making a really really simple site (think of the web back in 1992), you can just do it all with hard-coded HTML and some CSS.
And if you want to make a modern webapp, you don't actually need to use a framework for that, either.
You can instead choose to write all of the logic you need yourself, every time.
You can write your own data-persistence/storage layer, or - if you're too busy - just write custom SQL for every single database access.
You can write your own authentication and session handling layers.
And your own template rending logic.
And your own exception-handling logic.
And your own security functions.
And your own unit test framework to make sure it all works fine.
And your own... [goes on for quite a long time]
Then again, if you do use a framework, you'll be able to benefit from the good, usually peer-reviewed and very well tested work of dozens if not hundreds of other developers, who may well be better than you. You'll get to build what you want rapidly, without having to spend time building or worrying too much about the infrastructure items listed above.
You can get more done in less time, and know that the framework code you're using or extending is very likely to be done better than you doing it all yourself.
And the cost of this? Investing some time learning the framework. But - as virtually every web dev out there will attest - it's definitely worth the time spent learning to get massive (really, massive) benefits from using whatever framework you choose.
The summary at Wikipedia (Software Framework) (first google hit btw) explains it quite well:
A software framework, in computer programming, is an abstraction in which common code providing generic functionality can be selectively overridden or specialized by user code providing specific functionality. Frameworks are a special case of software libraries in that they are reusable abstractions of code wrapped in a well-defined Application programming interface (API), yet they contain some key distinguishing features that separate them from normal libraries.
Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them from libraries or normal user applications:
inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]
default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.
extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific functionality.
non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify its code.
You may "need" it because it may provide you with a great shortcut when developing applications, since it contains lots of already written and tested functionality. The reason is quite similar to the reason we use software libraries.
A lot of good answers already, but let me see if I can give you another viewpoint.
Simplifying things by quite a bit, you can view a framework as an application that is complete except for the actual functionality. You plug in the functionality and PRESTO! you have an application.
Consider, say, a GUI framework. The framework contains everything you need to make an application. Indeed you can often trivially make a minimal application with very few lines of source that does absolutely nothing -- but it does give you window management, sub-window management, menus, button bars, etc. That's the framework side of things. By adding your application functionality and "plugging it in" to the right places in the framework you turn this empty app that does nothing more than window management, etc. into a real, full-blown application.
There are similar types of frameworks for web apps, for server-side apps, etc. In each case the framework provides the bulk of the tedious, repetitive code (hopefully) while you provide the actual problem domain functionality. (This is the ideal. In reality, of course, the success of the framework is highly variable.)
I stress again that this is the simplified view of what a framework is. I'm not using scary terms like "Inversion of Control" and the like although most frameworks have such scary concepts built-in. Since you're a beginner, I thought I'd spare you the jargon and go with an easy simile.
I'm not sure there's a clear-cut definition of "framework". Sometimes a large set of libraries is called a framework, but I think the typical use of the word is closer to the definition aioobe brought.
This very nice article sums up the difference between just a set of libraries and a framework:
A framework can be defined as a set of libraries that say “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
How does a framework help you? Because instead of writing something from scratch, you basically just extend a given, working application. You get a lot of productivity this way - sometimes the resulting application can be far more elaborate than you could have done on your own in the same time frame - but you usually trade in a lot of flexibility.
A simple explanation is: A framework is a scaffold that you can you build applications around.
A framework generally provides some base functionality which you can use and extend to make more complex applications from, there are frameworks for all sorts of things. Microsofts MVC framework is a good example of this. It provides everything you need to get off the ground building website using the MVC pattern, it handles web requests, routes and the like. All you have to do is implement "Controllers" and provide "Views" which are two constructs defined by the MVC framework. The MVC framework then handles calling your controllers and rendering your views.
Perhaps not the best wording but I hope it helps
at the lowest level, a framework is an environment, where you are given a set of tools to work with
this tools come in the form of libraries, configuration files, etc.
this so-called "environment" provides you with the basic setup (error reportings, log files, language settings, etc)...which can be modified,extended and built upon.
People actually do not need frameworks, it's just a matter of wanting to save time, and others just a matter of personal preferences.
People will justify that with a framework, you don't have to code from scratch. But those are just people confusing libraries with frameworks.
I'm not being biased here, I am actually using a framework right now.
In General, A frame Work is real or Conceptual structure of intended to serve as a support or Guide for the building some thing that expands the structure into something useful...
A framework provides functionalities/solution to the particular problem area.
Definition from wiki:
A software framework, in computer
programming, is an abstraction in
which common code providing generic
functionality can be selectively
overridden or specialized by user code
providing specific functionality.
Frameworks are a special case of
software libraries in that they are
reusable abstractions of code wrapped
in a well-defined Application
programming interface (API), yet they
contain some key distinguishing
features that separate them from
normal libraries.
A framework helps us about using the "already created", a metaphore can be like,
think that earth material is the programming language,
and for example "a camera" is the program, and you decided to create a notebook. You don't need to recreate the camera everytime, you just use the earth framework (for example to a technology store) take the camera and integrate it to your notebook.
A framework has some functions that you may need. you maybe need some sort of arrays that have inbuilt sorting mechanisms. Or maybe you need a window where you want to place some controls, all that you can find in a framework. it's a kind of WORK that spans a FRAME around your own work.
EDIT:
OK I m about to dig what you guys were trying to tell me ;) you perhaps havent noticed the information between the lines "WORK that spans a FRAME around ..."
before this is getting fallen deeper n deeper. I try to give a floor to it hoping you're gracfully:
a good explanation to the question "Difference between a Library and a Framework" I found here
http://ifacethoughts.net/2007/06/04/difference-between-a-library-and-a-framework/
Beyond definitions, which are sometimes understandable only if you already understand, an example helped me.
I think I got a glimmer of understanding when loooking at sorting a list in .Net; an example of a framework providing a functionality that's tailored by user code providing specific functionality. Take List.Sort(IComparer). The sort algorithm, which resides in the .Net framework in the Sort method, needs to do a series of compares; does object A come before or after object B? But Sort itself has no clue how to do the compare; only the type being sorted knows that. You couldn't write a comparison sort algorithm that can be reused by many users and anticipate all the various types you'd be called upon to sort. You've got to leave that bit of work up to the user itself. So here, sort, aka the framework, calls back to a method in the user code, the type being sorted so it can do the compare. (Or a delegate can be used; same point.)
Did I get this right?
I realize that this may be subjective but I truly need an answer to this and I can't seem to find anything close enough to it in the rest of the Forum. I have read some folks say that the framework (any MVC framework) can obscure too many things while others say that it can promote good practices. I realize that frameworks are great for a certain level of programmer but what about individuals starting out? Should one just focus on the language or learn them together?
I think web development is way more than anyone grasps when they first start getting into it! Read this and know that it is all optional...but required to be really good at what you do.
I suggest that you spend time learning your language first. I would suggest learning C# simply because it is vastly more marketable and it is usually directly supported in most of MS products. By learning C# - programming in ASP.NET, console apps, servers, services, desktop apps, etc. will all be within your reach. You can program for most of the MS products as well as on many Linux type platforms.
Once you have this down then you can move to programming for the web as programming for the web has some intricacies that most other environments don't have. Concepts such as sessions, caching, state management, cross site scripting, styling, client side vs server side programming, browser support, how HTTP works, get vs post, how a form works, cookies, etc. are all at the top of the list of things to learn separately not to mention learning the ASP.NET base frameworks and namespaces.
Once you have the programming language down and then the concepts of web programming I suggest that you pause and learn database design. Don't worry about performance just yet...try to first learn good design. Performance will come next. A good start for you is Access (blasphemy I know). It is easy for a beginner to work with. And it translates into a more robust platform such as SQL Server easily. Learn at the very least some SQL...but I suggest that you learn as much as your stomach can handle. I heard someone say that SQL is like the assembly language of the database. The number one thing that slows an application to a halt is piss poor database design and poor queries. Once you have this knowledge - stuff it away in the back of your mind and take a look at a good ORM. NHybernate is probably best at the moment but is more complex that the basic learner needs. For that reason I currently suggest getting LINQ to SQL up and running as it is SUPER EASY to work with. Then look at Entity Framework (although I still think it sucks...and you should wait till EF 2.0...ERRRRR...now 4.0 released with .net 4.0). Then NHybernate.
Now is the time to start to understand the infrastructure that is required by web development. You may bump your head against this as you learn some of the web programming stuff. But you need to understand the basics of DNS, IIS, load balancers, sticky routing, round robin, clustering, fault tolerance, server hardware setup, web farms, cache farms (MemCached Win32, Velocity), SMTP, MSMQ, database mail queuing, etc. Many people may say you don't need this. That there will be some knowledgeable network admin to help you out here. However they generally know things that impact them...not you. The more you know here the more valuable you will be to the company that hires you.
Now you can get into the details of best practices and design patterns. Learn about the basics such as repository pattern, factory pattern, facade pattern, model view presenter pattern, model view controller pattern, observer pattern, and various other things. Follow Martin Fowler and others for suggestions here. Take a look at concepts such as inversion of control, dependency injection, SOLID principle, DRY, FIT, test driven design, and domain driven design, etc. Learn as much as you can here before moving to the next step.
NOW you can think about frameworks! Start by creating a basic application with ASP Classic (comes with IIS for free!). This will give you a flavor of a no frills web development environment. Take a look at ASP.NET web forms (briefly) to see how MS attempted to make things easier by hiding all the complex stuff (which you now know how to manage on your own from your readings of the above materials!!!). Now you no longer need ASP.NET Web Forms. Move immediately to ASP.NET MVC. The MVC framwork gives you all the power you need to create a good easily manageable web application. If you build something really big no framework for pure web development may be able to deal with what you need. However MVC is way more extensible for such UBER custom scenarios.
Now that you have made it through the journey to ASP.NET MVC you can take a look at things such as Microsofts Enterprise Application Blocks (such as they use at MySpace). Take a look at Elmah error logging (a must have). Look at how to build a custom SiteMapProvider for your MVC site. If you need to get into searching stuff understand Lucene.NET.
And if you made it this far...you are ready to figure out the rest on your own as it comes up! Have fun. There is a lot of room in this space for a person with some understanding of all of the above concepts.
You'll be using SOME sort of framework. The question is, what level do you want to learn at?
You'll probably not care to learn about asynchronous I/O and mutlithreaded vs. select/poll styles of web servers.
So then, your language of choice is going to provide a layer atop this, the languages preferred "web interface" API. For Java it's Servlets, the lowest level you'd typically code at for server side web applications.
You should find what this "lower level" layer is in your language and learn the API at least. You should know basic HTTP like status codes, cookies, redirects, POST vs GET, URL encoding, and possibly what some of the more important headers do.
You'll then come to appreciate what these higher level frameworks bring to the table, and be better able to evaluate what is the appropriate level of abstraction for your needs/project.
Web development requires a certain degree of organization, since it relies so much on separation of concerns. The browser, for example, is designed to display data and interact with the user. It is not designed to lookup data from a database, or perform analysis. Consequently, a web development framework can help provide services that are needed to make the browser experience a practical one.
The nice thing about employing a platform is that it will provide core components essential to the making of any web application that you won't (and shouldn't) have to think about, such as user membership, for example. Many of the design decisions and deep thinking about how to implement these services has already been done for you, freeing you to focus on what you actually want you application to do.
Of the available frameworks, I find that frameworks that implement the MVC (model-view-controller) pattern are very practical. They clearly organize different functions of web development, while giving you full control over the markup presented to the browser.
All that said, you will need some fundamental skills to fully realize web development, such as HTML, CSS, and a core programming language for the actual underlying program, whether you use a platform or not.
I don't think I agree with the Andrew. I don't think learning C is a pre requisite for web development. In fact, learning something like Javascript, Action-script or PHP is often easier due in large part to the vast numbers of sites and tutorials available, and are enough to expose you to the fundamentals of pretty much every programing language. Variable, Conditions, Loops and OOP. I just think learning C# introduces a lot of learning that isn't really relevant to web development such as pointers and memory management.
As for wether you should learn a framework first? Definitely not. Never ever. You need to be able to stand on your own two feet first and be comfortable with HTML/CSS, Server Side Scripting (PHP/ASP/Python/Ruby whatever) and love it or loathe it, but you're going to have to have a decent understanding of Flash and Action-script.
The order in which you learn these is entirely up to you. But my learning plan would go like this...
Start with HTML. It takes about half an hour to get the basics (it's made up of tags with attributes, end of lesson 1) and it's good to get it out of the way first.
Then start leaning CSS. You'll get the basics again, very quickly. But CSS is a minefield so expect to spend the rest of your life figuring it out.
Next up Action-script. Most people wouldn't agree with me, but bear with me. HTML and CSS aren't programming languages. Action-script is. And learning a programing language for the first time is difficult and tedious. The advantage Action-script has over most other languages is that the results are very visual. It's enjoyable to work with and you can sit back and take pride in your accomplishments at regular intervals. This isn't possible with server-side scripting languages or Javascript and there's a whole host of stuff you need to learn to get server side scripting up and running. You can't build space invaders in with PHP for example.
I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to ignore ActionScript and focus on Javascript. I still believe that being able to see stuff on screen quickly is a good motivator, but I would encourage people to look at canvas tag tutorials and frameworks. Javascript has come a long way since 2009, and is now the lingua franca of programming, so it's incredibly useful. My initial point about HTML and CSS not being programming languages still stands.
Then, you can start with your server side language. At the same time, you're going to have to figure out the database stuff. I recommend PHP and MySQL because it's free.
Again, I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to use Javascript on the backend (Node.js), and split their database learning between relational databases and noSql solutions such as Mongo.
Then.... learn your framework. Or better yet, roll your own. That's what I've been doing and it's supercharged my learning.
If you're getting into web development, You HAVE to know how those building blocks work. You don't have to be an expert in all the areas, but you should try to become an expert in at least one of them. If you start learning a framework before you get the fundamentals you'll be in a sticky middle ground where you don't understand why things don't work which will infuriate you, and anyone who has to work with you.
you should learn how to use framework because it would be helpfull for u in the future also it is easier to learn.
MVC will help you a lot .. trust me ... i was developing web project not using mvc and it is like mess ... (in the past there are no well know mvc and i never heard about it)
Short version: yes, and then some.
FWIW : This more generic answer may be of use to someone out there.
What: Frameworks take out tedium of using boiler-plate code again and again. They hide complexity and design issues under wizards and conventions. They also use special libraries, design patterns etc. in ways that are far from obvious to a beginner.
So using a framework is good for getting things done without knowing exactly how - like using an ATM without knowing the internals. You just add your code bits in certain places and things 'just work'.
HTML > CSS > Ruby > SQL > Rails/Javascript framework > Libraries would make for a good learning track. Rest you learn as you go along by being curious, hanging out on forums or as extended learning as need arises.
HOW: The problem starts the minute you step outside simple text-book examples (i.e. when you try to get it to do something even a bit different).
Decoding cryptic error messages when it seems like you've done everything right but things still don't work. Searching on error strings in forums may help out. Or just re-starting from scratch.
Reading up articles and books, videos, trial-and-error, hard-work, search-engines, stackoverflow/forums, local gurus, design articles, using libraries, source-code browsing are a good way to climb the learning curve gently and on a requirement basis.
Working-against-the-framework is the number one problem for beginners. Understanding what the framework expects is key to avoiding white-hair in this phase. Having enough insight to manually do what the framework automates may help reduce this second-guessing effort.
WHY: For more advanced debugging/design, it's good to know what the framework is doing under the hood esp. when things don't work as you planned. Initially you can take the help of local-gurus or forum gurus who've already done the hard work. Later as you go deeper you can take on more of that role. For example there's a "rebuilding rails" book which looks under the hood of Ruby on Rails.
Note: Some of the tips are oriented towards Ruby/Rails but you can easily substitute your favourite language/framework instead.
Update: This question was inspired by my larger quest for mapping ontologically the whole software systems architecture enchilada. I've written a blog post about it, and hopefully it will help clarify what I'm after.
Many, many, many frameworks and stacks that's event-driven have too much variation for my little head to get around. Is there somewhere some resources that defines the outline of a reasonable Application Event Model, what events there are, and what triggers are most common?
I've got my own framework with a plugin and event-driven architecture, but I want to open-source it, and as such would like to make it closer to some common ground as not to alienate people.
So to clarify; this is for an application, meaning setting up the environment, the dependencies, the data sources (like databases), and being a MVC framework setting up the model, the view, launching controllers / actions, and in the GUI various stages of the interface (header, content, columns, etc.).
Ideas? Thoughts? Pointers? (And I've made it language and platform neutral at this point)
I read your blog entry, which btw I found an extremely interesting read, but... this question does not seem to reflect the broadness of the issue you are presenting there.
What you are after is very abstract and theoretical. What I mean to say is that if you tie any of those ideas to actual technology you will find yourself 'stuck' with it. This is why many of us are reluctant to use any framework. Especially the 'relabeled' products suddenly claiming to conform to the trend. We choose mainly on the basis of what appears to be needed to reach a predetermined result.
Frameworks (or tools in general) that target the application architecture domain distinguish themselves primarily by the amount of responsibility they are designed to take on. Spring for example only deals with the concept of decoupling and is therefore easily adopted and useable in many situations. The quality of any framework is expressed in terms of how well the designers of such frameworks were able to keep their products within the boundaries of that responsibility. Some front-to-end products will do exactly the opposite, code generators being among the 'worst' of them.
To answer your question at the top of this page, I do not think there is a framework that does what you want at this time and I do not think there is a single model of how applications (should) work. Keep in mind though that the application architecture domain deals with technology more than it does with concepts. In other words: If it works and meets the requirements, then you're pretty much done.
That said, you might find something of value in agent-based systems.
Heh. Most developers pick the major framework they like the tools for and stick with it. That's usually the winning strategy. I sympathize with your desire not to marry a single vendor.
Keep in mind however, that in developing your own framework, you're going to end up tied to a single vendor anyway. :-)
Is there somewhere some resources that defines the outline of a reasonable
Application Event Model, what events there are, and what triggers are most common?
I don't think so.
From what I see, there are two kinds of models out there: those with a real framework with which you can make a working data entry dialog, and abstract meta-meta-models that are optimized for modeling themselves.
Try surveying a few current frameworks that have good documentation online and cross-reference the major terminology in a spreadsheet. It's an interesting exercise.
I'd have a look at Spring for Java, and the XT Framework Spring module (http://springmodules.dev.java.net/docs/reference/0.9/html/xt.html), which apparently supports event-driven architecture, as starting points. Spring has an MVC framework (inc. convention-based routing to controllers), db configuration (for Hibernate, particularly), plus full dependency injection support. There's also a mechanism in Spring for modularising your web apps, called Spring Slices. And it can be integrated with Jersey for building RESTful apps.
(Unfortunately, I tried to provide links to everything, but this place only lets new users post a single link. So you'll have to do some googling :) )
I'm at a point in my freelance career where I've developed several web applications for small to medium sized businesses that support things such as project management, booking/reservations, and email management.
I like the work but find that eventually my applications get to a point where the overhear for maintenance is very high. I look back at code I wrote 6 months ago and find I have to spend a while just relearning how I originally coded it before I can make a fix or feature additions. I do try to practice using frameworks (I've used Zend Framework before, and am considering Django for my next project)
What techniques or strategies do you use to plan out an application that is capable of handling a lot of users without breaking and still keeping the code clean enough to maintain easily?
If anyone has any books or articles they could recommend, that would be greatly appreciated as well.
Although there are certainly good articles on that topic, none of them is a substitute of real-world experience.
Maintainability is nothing you can plan straight ahead, except on very small projects. It is something you need to take care of during the whole project. In fact, creating loads of classes and infrastructure code in advance can produce code which is even harder to understand than naive spaghetti code.
So my advise is to clean up your existing projects, by continuously refactoring them. Look at the parts which were a pain to change, and strive for simpler solutions that are easier to understand and to adjust. If the code is even too bad for that, consider rewriting it from scratch.
Don't start new projects and expect them to succeed, just because your read some more articles or used a new framework. Instead, identify the failures of your existing projects and fix their specific problems. Whenever you need to change your code, ask yourself how to restructure it to support similar changes in the future. This is what you need to do anyway, because there will be similar changes in the future.
By doing those refactorings you'll stumble across various specific questions you can ask and read articles about. That way you'll learn more than by just asking general questions and reading general articles about maintenance and frameworks.
Start cleaning up your code today. Don't defer it to your future projects.
(The same is true for documentation. Everyone's first docs were very bad. After several months they turn out to be too verbose and filled with unimportant stuff. So complement the documentation with solutions to the problems you really had, because chances are good that next year you'll be confronted with a similar problem. Those experiences will improve your writing style more than any "how to write good" style guide.)
I'd honestly recommend looking at Martin Fowlers Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. It discusses a lot of ways to make your application more organized and maintainable. In addition, I would recommend using unit testing to give you better comprehension of your code. Kent Beck's book on Test Driven Development is a great resource for learning how to address change to your code through unit tests.
To improve the maintainability you could:
If you are the sole developer then adopt a coding style and stick to it. That will give you confidence later when navigating through your own code about things you could have possibly done and the things that you absolutely wouldn't. Being confident where to look and what to look for and what not to look for will save you a lot of time.
Always take time to bring documentation up to date. Include the task into development plan; include that time into the plan as part any of change or new feature.
Keep documentation balanced: some high level diagrams, meaningful comments. Best comments tell that cannot be read from the code itself. Like business reasons or "whys" behind certain chunks of code.
Include into the plan the effort to keep code structure, folder names, namespaces, object, variable and routine names up to date and reflective of what they actually do. This will go a long way in improving maintainability. Always call a spade "spade". Avoid large chunks of code, structure it by means available within your language of choice, give chunks meaningful names.
Low coupling and high coherency. Make sure you up to date with techniques of achieving these: design by contract, dependency injection, aspects, design patterns etc.
From task management point of view you should estimate more time and charge higher rate for non-continuous pieces of work. Do not hesitate to make customer aware that you need extra time to do small non-continuous changes spread over time as opposed to bigger continuous projects and ongoing maintenance since the administration and analysis overhead is greater (you need to manage and analyse each change including impact on the existing system separately). One benefit your customer is going to get is greater life expectancy of the system. The other is accurate documentation that will preserve their option to seek someone else's help should they decide to do so. Both protect customer investment and are strong selling points.
Use source control if you don't do that already
Keep a detailed log of everything done for the customer plus any important communication (a simple computer or paper based CMS). Refresh your memory before each assignment.
Keep a log of issues left open, ideas, suggestions per customer; again refresh your memory before beginning an assignment.
Plan ahead how the post-implementation support is going to be conducted, discuss with the customer. Make your systems are easy to maintain. Plan for parameterisation, monitoring tools, in-build sanity checks. Sell post-implementation support to customer as part of the initial contract.
Expand by hiring, even if you need someone just to provide that post-implementation support, do the admin bits.
Recommended reading:
"Code Complete" by Steve Mcconnell
Anything on design patterns are included into the list of recommended reading.
The most important advice I can give having helped grow an old web application into an extremely high available, high demand web application is to encapsulate everything. - in particular
Use good MVC principles and frameworks to separate your view layer from your business logic and data model.
Use a robust persistance layer to not couple your business logic to your data model
Plan for statelessness and asynchronous behaviour.
Here is an excellent article on how eBay tackles these problems
http://www.infoq.com/articles/ebay-scalability-best-practices
Use a framework / MVC system. The more organised and centralized your code is the better.
Try using Memcache. PHP has a built in extension for it, it takes about ten minutes to set up and another twenty to put in your application. You can cache whatever you want to it - I cache all my database records in it - for every application. It does wanders.
I would recommend using a source control system such as Subversion if you aren't already.
You should consider maybe using SharePoint. It's an environment that is already designed to do all you have mentioned, and has many other features you maybe haven't thought about (but maybe you will need in the future :-) )
Here's some information from the official site.
There are 2 different SharePoint environments you can use: Windows Sharepoint Services (WSS) or Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server (MOSS). WSS is free and ships with Windows Server 2003, while MOSS isn't free, but has much more features and covers almost all you enterprise's needs.