Is N-Tier Architecture only the physical separation of code or there is something more to it?
What sorts of coding do we put in Presentation Layer, Application Layer, Business Logic Layer, User Interface Logic, Data Access Layer, Data Access Object,?
Can all the layers mentioned above give a fully functional N-tier architecture?
One case:
Whenever a user clicks a button to load a content via AJAX, they we do coding to fetch a particular HTML output and then update the element, so does this JavaScript coding also lie on a different tier? Because If N-tier Architecture is really about physical separation of code, than i think Its better to separate the JavaScript coding also.
Tiers and Layers are completely different things.
N-tier is less about code separation and more about scalability. The idea being that you can easily scale out different "tiers" as necessary. Most websites are 2 tier: web server and database server. Sometimes they go to 3, with a Service Oriented Architecture.
Layers is all about code separation and reusability. MVC is a good example of layered code.
Beyond all of that and before you go happily putting up barriers between different portions of your code, you really need to ask yourself two questions: What are you Separating and Why are you Concerned about it? If you can't give rock solid answers to both of those (particularly the second), then I'd say stop what your doing and back away from the keyboard. And by a rock solid answer, I don't mean "because bob said this is the way it should work."
Take the time to really understand what is going on, how both the code and your sanity will be impacted by putting up these barriers. If they help, great; if they don't, well..
The way I've heard the difference between layers and tiers described is that layers can be on different machines whereas tier may not (I have also heard the terms used in reverse). Thus, n-layer implies n-tier. The database server for example represents a separate layer but simply have a library of business logic that cannot be run on a machine separate from the presentation code is simply a separation of tiers. If the business logic is accessed through a service layer which could be hosted on a different machine than the presentation code, then it would, as the name implies, represent a separate layer.
N-tier would simply mean a separation of code into libraries that might still be required to run on the same physical machine. N-layer would represent a separation of code into services that probably run on separate machines even if it was possible to run them all on the same machine.
Addition
The Presentation tier would contain anything related to displaying the information to the user. In an MVC for example, that tier is subdivided into a controller which retrieves information from the business logic tier (model) and a view which displays the information itself. The data access tier would contain code used to retrieve information from the data layer. The business logic tier(s) would contain code the retrieves information from the data tier, processes that information into an object model that accounts for business rules and makes it available to tiers above it like the presentation tier.
The reasoning behind tiers is that they provide a degree of separation from the tier below. For example, suppose the data layer changed or more specifically, the database product changed. It would only require updating the data tier and not the entire code base.
Using the definitions I've provided, a standard database driven website for example with no calls to services really only has a presentation layer and a data layer (the database) even if it has multiple presentation tiers, middle tiers, and a data tiers. If you have service calls, depending on where they are called, they would represent another layer.
Related
I'm an architect in a large scale financial company and we are in the beginning of implementing a new business oriented infosystem across our different countries.
From the very early on the core idea has been to follow microservice oriented principles as much as possible (and making sure engineers have read Building Microservices book by Sam Newman).
By now I've come to crossroads. Our services are primarily JSON REST services using Swagger for automated documentation, but in order to use these services in our business processes and making sure not to write business logic into services outside the domain of those services, we've been using Camunda as an orchestration tool. And Camunda is fine (though some have considered Corezoid as an alternative), but somewhat clumsy in what is an otherwise an elegant set of services.
Now service orchestration is a concept pretty familiar to most engineers. But it is one that I am not entirely happy with due to still having a central engine that drives everything. It is incredibly expensive to replace later down the road (though still cheaper to replace than a monolith). And even if this central engine is split into multiple engines (which is actually the case today), it does not necessarily make it much better.
In recent years there has been a movement with microservices towards choreographed (close to event-driven) architecture. It is at this point where I am looking for advice from engineers and architects who have faced similar crossroad decision points.
I absolutely love the idea of decoupled architecture and despite feeling good about killing monoliths and having elegant independent services, I still detect a lot of dependencies in business process as a whole in current orchestrated solution in where it should not actually exist.
And it's not like we are avoiding events. We have actually implemented events on our architecture as well in order to decouple many processes with the core principle that if you don't need a synchronized response and just need to notify of something happening to initiate another process an event is put up that may be caught by another process that starts executing. And orchestration is easier to explain and visualize, it is easier to tweak and modify by more technical minded business users. And I think it is easier to test and validate from business perspective. Orchestrated architecture like this also (usually) expects a good service discovery and quality automated documentation and non-functional requirements which are all things I value greatly.
All of those things that are a question to me in choreographed approach since I don't have first-hand experience in running this in large scale - just some local test prototypes.
But I think you see where I am coming from. I'm trying to consider alternatives without having to regret driving the company all the other way in the end.
Perhaps you can share your own experience with a similar situation or share an interesting link or two? Or am I looking for a silver bullet that doesn't exist yet?
Services need to interact - services that don't interact are not part of the same system. The search needs access to the catalog, the cart doesn't get the price info from the page, the account needs the purchase history, the recommender needs purchase history, the cart needs to verify the currently available coupons, the inventory needs to know something was purchased etc.
Service boundaries are set to minimize the needed interactions. It can make sense to cut a service to smaller components but if they share a database (internal structure) they are different aspects of the service.
When services interact it creates a level of coupling - at the least, this coupling is some API (JSON or otherwise) that the service has to "maintain" for so other services can interact with it.
Another coupling type is temporal coupling - which is what you get in request-reply situations (and you can eliminate in event driven systems) However, Orchestration vs. Choreography is not about these differences (even though orchestration is mostly associated with request/reply) - it is about central control and governance vs.flexibility and serendipity.
Orchestration has risks like migrating business logic out of services into the orchestration while choreography runs the risk of chaos. By the way, direct request/reply integration has the worst of both worlds but wins on simplicity when systems are small enough.
Choosing between the two is a balancing act (like most architectural decisions) for instance, Netflix built on choreography for a lot of time but then found they need some control back and introduced an orchestration engine. Nothing is a silver bullet :)
Personally, I like choreography better because of the reduced coupling and flexibility and favor tools like open Zipkin to bring some order into the chaos.
You can see a partial example for an orchestration based arch in slides 10-22 of a presentation I did about microservices
I think I understand where you're coming from, having recently redesigned a system to a "microservices" architecture. I like (and use) the approach by these guys: http://scs-architecture.org/
The main point is, that you try to avoid cross-dependencies between you "services", which basically makes choreography obsolete. The hard part is decomposing your problem domain into chunks which do not need eachother for any of the executed business-cases. They may need different kinds of data that may or may not be "shared", as in present in multiple systems, but they don't need synchronous calls between them for any given business case.
This is quite different from what Netflix is doing for example. Those guys/gals are doing chain-calling through different layers of services, each adding its logic to the "process". This model might fit in some cases, and probably fits in Netflix's case. But it may not be necessary for you.
The ideal Self-Contained System would be completely independent of other Self-Contained Systems, would cover one or more highly cohesive business functions (in full depth from the UI to Persistence!), and would be not calling any other system synchronously. The ideal system would let the client "orchestrate", by just offering links through its Web (HTML) interface.
Think more like Amazon. The "Landing Page" is a different application than the "Search", which is still different from the "Checkout". They are completely different, sometimes even look a bit different! Integrated by links and forms in HTML, not explicitly orchestrated.
This might be what you are looking for.
Some warnings: First instinct of some people is to have "Customer" microservice, or "Product Repository" microservice, and similar. This will not lead to Self-Contained Systems, as you will need synchronous calls to these things, making them essentially "central" components. The key is to split the business domain, so bounded contexts a la Eric Evans.
When building a microservice oriented application, i wonder what could be the appropriate microservice granularity.
Let's image an application consisting of:
A set of various resources types where each resource map a given business model. (ex: In a todo app resources could be User, TodoList and TodoItem...)
Each of those resources are saved within a NoSQL database that could be replicated.
Each of those resources are exposed through a REST Api
The application manage an internal chat room.
An Api gateway for gathering chat room and REST api interaction.
The application front end: an SPA application connected to the API Gateway
The first (and naive) approach when thinking about how microservices could match the need of this application would be:
One monolith service for managing EVERY resources and business logic:
By managing i mean providing the REST API for all of those resources and handling the persistance of those resources within the database.
One service for each Database replica.
One service providing the internal chat room using websocket or whatever.
One service for Authentification.
One service for the api gateway.
One service serving the static assets for the SPA front end.
An other approach could be to split service 1 into as many service as business models exist in the system. (let's call those services resource services)
I wonder what are the benefit of this second approach.
In fact i see a lot of downsides with this approach:
Need to setup an inter service communication process.
When requesting a service representing resource X that have a relation with resource Y, a lot more work are needed (i.e: interservice request)
More devops work.
More difficulty to share common code between resource services.
Where to put business logic ?
When starting a fresh project this second approach seams to me a bit of an over engineered work.
I feel like starting with the first approach and THEN split the monolith resource service into several specific services depending on the observed needs will minimize the complexity and risks.
What's your opinions regarding that ?
Is there any best practices ?
Thanks a lot !
The first approach is not microservice way, by definition.
And yes, idea is to split - each service for Bounded Context - One for Users, one for Inventory, Todo things etc etc.
The idea of microservices, at very simple, assumes:
You want to pay extra dev-ops work for modularity, and complete/as much as possible removal of dependencies between different bounded contexts (see dev/product/pjm teams).
It's idea lies around ownership, modularity, allowing separate teams develop their own piece of code, without requirement from them to know the rest of the system . As long as there is Umbiqutious Language (common set of conventions/communication protocols/terminology/documentation) they can work in completeley isolated, autotonmous fashion.
Maintaining, managing, testing, and develpoing become much faster - in cost of initial dev-ops and sophisticated architecture engeneering investment.
Sharing code should be minimal, and if required, could be done to represent the Umbiqutious Language (common communication interface/set of conventions). Sharing well-documented code, which acts as integration/infrastructure mini-framework, and have special dev/dev-ops/team attached to it ccould be easy business, as long as it, as i said, well-documented, and threated as separate architecture-related sub-project.
Properly engeneered Microservice architecture could lessen maintenance and development times by huge margin, but it requires quite serious reason to use it (there lot of reasons, and lots of articles on that, I wont start it here) and quite serious engeneering investment at start.
It brings modularity, concept of ownership, de-coupling of different contexts of your app.
My personal advise check if you really need MS architecture. If you can not invest engenerring though and dev-ops effort at start and do not have proper reasons for such system - why bother?
If you do need MS, i would really advise against the first method. You will develop wrong thing's, will miss the true challenges of MS, and could end with huge refactor, which could take more work than engeneering MS system from start properly. It's like to make square to make it fit into round bucket later.
Now answering your question title: granularity. (your question body bit different from your post title).
Attach it to Domain Model / Bounded Context. You can make meaty services at start, in order to avoid complex distributed transactions.
First just answer question if you need them in your design/architecture?
If not, probably you did a good design.
Passing reference ids between models from different microservices should suffice, and if not, try to rethink if more of complex transactions could be avoided.
If your system have unavoidable amount of distributed trasnactions, perhaps look towards using/making some CQRS mini-framework as your "shared code infrastructure component" / communication protocol.
It is the key problem of the microservices or any other SOA approach. It is where the theory meets the reality. In general you should not force the microservices architecture for the sake of it. This should rather naturally come from functional decomposition (top-down) and operational, technological, dev-ops needs (bottom-up). First approach is closer to what you would need to do, however at the first step do not focus so much on the technology aspect. Ask yourself why would you need to implement a separate service for particular business function. Treat it as a micro-application with all its technical resources. Ask yourself if there is reason to implement particular function as a full-stack app.
Some, of the functionalities you have mentioned in scenario 1) are naturally ok, such as 'authentication' service - this is probably good candidate.
For the business functions decomposition into separate service, focus on the 'dependencies' problem, if there are too many dependencies and you see that you have to implement bigger chunk of data mode - naturally this is not a micro service any more.
Try to put litmus test , if you can 'turn off' particular functionality and the system still makes sense - it is the candidate for service or further decomposition
I am taking over a project to replace an ancient legacy system from the ground up. Before I came on, the company hired a consultant who put together a basic sketch of the system and pushed SOA heavily. This resulted in a long list of "entity services", with the intention of them being composed into more complex service combinations. For instance, a user wanting committee info would hit the "Committee" service, which then calls the "Person" service to get its members, and the "Meeting" service to get its meetings, and so on.
I understand the flexibility gains in this, but my concerns are about performance. It seems to me that a system built with such a fine level of granularity to its services spends too many resources on translating service messages, and the performance will be unacceptable. It also seems to me that the flexibility gains can still be made using basic reusable objects, although in that case the benefit of a technology-agnostic interface is lost to gain performance.
For more background: The organization requesting this software does not currently have a stable of third-party software suites that need integrating with. This software will replace all suites. There are also currently no outside consumers who need to access the data outside of the provided website interface -- all service calls will be from other pieces inside our system. The choice of SOA in this case seems entirely based on the concept of "preparation".
So my question -- what level of granularity is acceptable in a stable of services without sacrificing performance? Am I being too skeptical of the performance hits we'll take implementing all our entities as services? Should functionality be available as web services only when they are needed, with the "preparation" focus instead going into designing the business layer for the probability of services later being dropped on top of it?
First off, finding the "sweet spot" in the number of services is difficult for sure. Too many services, and your integration costs suffer, too few, and your implementation costs suffer. You have to find a good balance.
My advice to you is to follow Juval Lowy's methodology in that you should break down your services by areas of volatility, or areas of change. This will give you your granularity level. You should also read his WCF book if you can.
As for the performance, WCF will inherently support many thousands of calls per second depending on your use cases and hardware. Services calling services is not a problem. The platform will support it if you do your part. For example, use the right binding for the right scenario (named pipes to call services on the same machine and TCP to call services across machine where possible). You should also implement a vertical slice of the application and do performance testing before building the rest of the application. This will verify your architecture.
When I say "Service", I mean the complete vertical component that can perform a complete independent operation. And I don't prefer going in more granularity unless there is exceptional requirement. In my view of SOA, A service should perform the meaningful business function that can be independently performed. A service should not require another service to complete its function.
What level of granularity is acceptable in a stable of services without sacrificing performance?
Individual entities. As described by the consultant.
Am I being too skeptical of the performance hits we'll take implementing all our entities as services?
Yes. Way too skeptical.
A decent framework can optimize some of these requests so that they don't involve a lot of network overheads.
As with SQL databases, the problems are largely solved. You'll find that the underlying applications that you're presenting as services are the bottlenecks. The SOA layer is largely plumbing. The bits still need to move through the pipes, the SOA layer just organizes them more intelligently than most of the alternatives.
Should services only be implemented when they are needed, with the "preparation" focus instead going into designing the business layer for the probability of services later being dropped on top of it?
Yes.
That's what "Agile" means.
Find a user story. Build just the services (and entities) for that story.
You will have some significant overhead for the first few stories in getting your SOA framework all squared away and deployable as a simple, repeatable release step.
Never do extensive "preparation" for things you "may" need in some improbable future. Read up on Agile and how to prioritize a backlog.
We have a website, where transactions are entered in and put through a workflow. We are going to follow the standard BLL(Business Logic Layer), DTO(Data Transfer Object), DAL(Data Access Layer) etc. for a tiered application. We have the need to separate everything out because some transactions will cross multiple applications with different business logic.
We also have a backend processor. It handles our transactions once the workflow has been completed. It works with various third party systems, some of which are unstable, or the interface to them is unstable, and then reports the status of the transaction. Each website will have its own version of the backend processor.
Now the question, with N-Tier, they suggest a new BLL for each application. With the layout of the application above, it can be argued that the backend processor and website is one application acting in unison, or two applications with different business logic. What would be the ideal way to handle this? Have it act like one system, or two?
One thing that I picked up on while learning MVC over the last couple years is the difference between what I call application logic and domain logic. I don't like the term business logic anymore, because it has too much baggage from all the conflicting theories and practices that have used that term too loosely.
Domain logic is the "traditional" business logic, how things are supposed to act, what they require (validation), etc. Application logic is anything that is specific to a given presentation of your domain, IE when the user clicks this submit button in your web app then they are directed to this web page over here (note that this has nothing to do with how a WinForms app or a background processor would work). Application logic should live in your application. Domain logic should live in your BLL and lower, and be reusable across the different applications that may use your common "business logic".
Kind of a general answer, but I hope that helps.
You might consider partitioning the functionality to reflect the organization of the stakeholders. Usually if you have two distinct organizational groups, then development and administration requirements are easier to manage if the functionality is similarly partioned. And vise versa.
Most of us don't spend that much time writing applications that explore the outer boundaries of hardware and software capabilities.
If you separate your concerns well then I think that you will be able to view them as the same application with a single business logic layer, there is no point writing the same code twice. The trick will be forcing the separation of concerns between the user interface portions of the website and the business logic in your BLL library.
Performance is going to be an issue as well, you have to ensure that your batch processing doesn't block your website from performing tasks that it needs to perform due to your resources. This may be an argument to keep them more separate, however as they're likely sharing a database anyway (or some other file based resource) then that may be an issue regardless.
I would keep a common business logic library programmed to interfaces and fully separated from your other concerns.
The "Ideal" way to do this depends on the project at hand and the various requirements of the system.
My default design is to have it act as one app. But if there are more heavyweight processes taking place, I like to create a batching process where the parameters of the requested job are stored and acted upon by a seperate process.
I was wondering if anyone can compare/contrast the differences between frontend, backend, and middleware ("middle-end"?) succinctly.
Are there cases where they overlap?
Are there cases where they MUST overlap, and frontend/backend cannot be separated?
In terms of bottlenecks, which end is associated with which type of bottlenecks?
Here is one breakdown:
Front-end tier -> User Interface layer usually consisting of a mix of HTML, Javascript, CSS, Flash, and various server-side code like ASP.Net, classic ASP, PHP, etc. Think of this as being closest to the user in terms of code.
Middleware, middle-tier -> One tier back, generally referred to as the "plumbing" part of a system. Java and C# are common languages for writing this part that could be viewed as the glue between the UI and the data and can be webservices or WCF components or other SOA components possibly.
Back-end tier -> Databases and other data stores are generally at this level. Oracle, MS-SQL, MySQL, SAP, and various off-the-shelf pieces of software come to mind for this piece of software that is the final processing of the data.
Overlap can exist between any of these as you could have everything poured into one layer like an ASP.Net website that uses the built-in AJAX functionality that generates Javascript while the code behind may contain database commands making the code behind contain both middle and back-end tiers. Alternatively, one could use VBScript to act as all the layers using ADO objects and merging all three tiers into one.
Similarly, taking middleware and either front or back-end can be combined in some cases.
Bottlenecks generally have a few different levels to them:
1) Database or back-end processing -> This can vary from payroll or sales or other tasks where the throughput to the database is bogging things down.
2) Middleware bottlenecks -> This would be where some web service may be hitting capacity but the front and back ends have bandwidth to handle more traffic. Alternatively, there may be some server that is part of a system that isn't quite the UI part or the raw data that can be a bottleneck using something like Biztalk or MSMQ.
3) Front-end bottlenecks -> This could client or server-side issues. For example, if you took a low-end PC and had it load a web page that consisted of a lot of data being downloaded, the client could be where the bottleneck is. Similarly, the server could be queuing up requests if it is getting hammered with requests like what Amazon.com or other high-traffic websites may get at times.
Some of this is subject to interpretation, so it isn't perfect by any means and YMMV.
EDIT: Something to consider is that some systems can have multiple front-ends or back-ends. For example, a content management system will likely have a way for site visitors to view the content that is a front-end but what about how content editors are able to change the data on the site? The ability to pull up this data could be seen as front-end since it is a UI component or it could be seen as a back-end since it is used by internal users rather than the general public viewing the site. Thus, there is something to be said for context here.
Generally speaking, people refer to an application's presentation layer as its front end, its persistence layer (database, usually) as the back end, and anything between as middle tier. This set of ideas is often referred to as 3-tier architecture. They let you separate your application into more easily comprehensible (and testable!) chunks; you can also reuse lower-tier code more easily in higher tiers.
Which code is part of which tier is somewhat subjective; graphic designers tend to think of everything that isn't presentation as the back end, database people think of everything in front of the database as the front end, and so on.
Not all applications need to be separated out this way, though. It's certainly more work to have 3 separate sub-projects than it is to just open index.php and get cracking; depending on (1) how long you expect to have to maintain the app (2) how complex you expect the app to get, you may want to forgo the complexity.
There are in fact 3 questions in your question :
Define frontend, middle and back end
How and when do they overlap ?
Their associated usual bottlenecks.
What JB King has described is correct, but it is a particular, simple version, where in fact he mapped front, middle and bacn to an MVC layer.
He mapped M to the back, V to the front, and C to the middle.
For many people, it is just fine, since they come from the ugly world where even MVC was not applied, and you could have direct DB calls in a view.
However in real, complex web applications, you indeed have two or three different layers, called front, middle and back. Each of them may have an associated database and a controller.
The front-end will be visible by the end-user. It should not be confused with the front-office, which is the UI for parameters and administration of the front. The front-end will usually be some kind of CMS or e-commerce Platform (Magento, etc.)
The middle-end is not compulsory and is where the business logics is. It will be based on a PIM, a MDM tool, or some kind of custom database where you enrich your produts or your articles (for CMS). It'll also be the place where you code business functions that need to be shared between differents frontends (for instance between the PC frontend and the API-based mobile application). Sometimes, an ESB or tool like ActiveMQ will be your middle-end
The back-end will be a 3rd layer, surrouding your source database or your ERP. It may be jsut the API wrting to and reading from your ERP. It may be your supplier DB, if you are doing e-commerce. In fact, it really depends on web projects, but it is always a central repository. It'll be accessed either through a DB call, through an API, or an Hibernate layer, or a full-featured back-end application
This description means that answering the other 2 questions is not possible in this thread, as bottlenecks really depend on what your 3 ends contain : what JB King wrote remains true for simple MVC architectures
at the time the question was asked (5 years ago), maybe the MVC pattern was not yet so widely adopted. Now, there is absolutely no reason why the MVC pattern would not be followed and a view would be tied to DB calls.
If you read the question "Are there cases where they MUST overlap, and frontend/backend cannot be separated?" in a broader sense, with 3 different components, then there times when the 3 layers architecture is useless of course. Think of a simple personal blog, you'll not need to pull external data or poll RabbitMQ queues.
Here is a real world example which shows front/mid/back end.
General description:
Frontend is responsible for presenting data to user. Please note interesting quirk that you may have two different front ends associated with single backend
Backend provides business logic/data persistence.
Middleware (activemq in the picture) is responsible for system to system. integration between backends. Usually it is installed as separate application
Overlapping:
It is possible to have overlapping between frontend and backend. This usually leaads to long-term issues with application maintenance and scalability. Fairly common in legacy applications.
Most modern technology stacks encourage developers to have strict separation. For example in the picture you can see that backend of the first system has rest web service which is a clear separation line.
Bottlenecks
Most bottlenecks in large are caused by database/network. Databases are located in backend. As for network issues every connection goes through netowrk, so every connection has potential for being slow. With good application design these issues are avoidable to large extend.
In terms of networking and security, the Backend is by far the most (should be) secure node.
The middle-end portion, usually being a web server, will be somewhat in the wild and cut off in many respects from a company's network. The middle-end node is usually placed in the DMZ and segmented from the network with firewall settings. Most of the server-side code parsing of web pages is handled on the middle-end web server.
Getting to the backend means going through the middle-end, which has a carefully crafted set of rules allowing/disallowing access to the vital nummies which are stored on the database (backend) server.
Frontend refers to the client-side, whereas backend refers to the server-side of the application. Both are crucial to web development, but their roles, responsibilities and the environments they work in are totally different. Frontend is basically what users see whereas backend is how everything works
Frontend -> these are the client side of a website from where a user can interact with the server through User Interface. generally built using Html and CSS.
Middleware -> Middleware are the software or service which is responsible for the system to communicate and manage the data. it handles the communication between components and input/output
Backend -> Backend are the server side of any application which consist of all functioning and operations performed on data. this part is considered to be most essential part of any application. Only the server admin have access to this. it mainly consist of database and servers.