We are developing a web application. We want to possibly reuse the work we do here for a different application that will use the same database, and use the same business rules for reading and writing to said database.
Which design would be more correct
Having the UI call web services, which would use business objects containing the business logic, which would talk to the data access layer.
Have the UI use business objects containing the business logic, which would call web services, which would then talk to the data access layer.
Have the UI user business objects containing the business logic, which would talk to the data access layer.
Don't mix logical design with physical design. Logical design operates over layers and physical design - tiers. Web Service is not a layer. It is simply a tier.
In logical design there is standard approach: UI layer-> BL layer -> DAL
In physical design all layers can reside within one client-side application connecting local database, or can be distributed over the remote tiers. But for distributed applications usually is added one more layer: Application layer, which hides from BL layer communication over the wire.
I would say the 3rd one. I tend to think of web services as another presentation layer.
Think of it this way: you have a web UI, which calls your business layer code to do things like create a new user (User.Add), find all products that match a given description (Products.FindByDescription), etc.
You can now re-use that same business layer code to build a set of public-facing web services for 3rd parties to make use of. There can be a method which adds a user - that calls your internal User.Add() method, another one to find products, etc..
What you get is a parallel set of presentations/interfaces to the same underlying data and business logic.
Behind the scenes (totally out of the scope of web services or UI layers), the business layer calls a data access layer that takes care of physically querying the database. If you were to change to a different DBMS, you should ideally (and in theory) be able to rebuild the data layer for the new database and have everything simply work.
Your business layer contains the rules like a username has to be 4 to 15 characters long; users are only allowed to search for and load products that are at a store they have access to; etc.
If you decide to change a business rule - like a user is allowed to search for products in any store in their state - then you change it in once place, and don't have to touch the web service or UI to make it work.
From your description, you haven't provided a reason why you would need the use of a web service layer. Assuming your database is reachable by your UI system, i.e. within the same network behind your firewall, a basic business-object layer that your website UI code (server-side, I'm assuming) will employ meets your requirements.
Bring in a web service tier when the distance between your UI system and your data layer starts to cross boundaries that a Data access layer or Business logic layer would begin to encounter difficulties.
In terms of the design being "correct" or not, it's not really possible to give a 100% answer to the correctness of a design without the full context. What are the requirements (functional and non-functional)? What design goals do you want to fulfill? How important is each goal?
The only goal your question mentions is that you want to reuse the business logic with another application. When I want to reuse the business logic of an application in a standard way I choose web services. So based solely on your one requirement I would say that option 1 ( UI->Web Service->Business Layer->Data Layer ) is a good choice.
Logically, web-services belong in the UI layer. Think of "User" being not only a human but another system and it becomes clear. Maintaining strict separation of concerns between these logical layers will allow you to easily implement and maintain your application.
Check Out: http://www.icemanind.com/layergen.aspx
The way it should go is, you have your UI layer on top, your data layer on the bottom and your business layer in between the two. Each layer can only communicate with the layer below it. So the UI talks to the business layer only...the business layer talks to the data layer only. Your UI should never talk with the data layer and your data layer should never interact with your UI.
Unless you have a reason to use a web service, then I wouldn't.
Do you hear anything about Service layer ? I think you can use a service layer for your transactions and operations and using a facade layer helps you to isolate and manage accessing from UI to data access layer directly or indirectly after visiting the Business layer . it depends on your requirements.
Related
I'm creating a web-application and decided to use micro-services approach. Would you please tell me what is the best approach or at least common to organize access to the database from all web-services (login, comments and etc. web-services). Is it well to create DAO web-service and use only it to to read/write values in the database of the application. Or each web-service should have its own dao layer.
Each microservice should be a full-fledged application with all necessary layers (which doesn't mean there cannot be shared code between microservices, but they have to run in separate processes).
Besides, it is often recommended that each microservice have its own database. See http://microservices.io/patterns/data/database-per-service.html https://www.nginx.com/blog/microservices-at-netflix-architectural-best-practices/ Therefore, I don't really see the point of a web service that would only act as a data access facade.
Microservices are great, but it is not good to start with too many microservices right away. If you have doubt about how to define the boundaries between microservices in your application, start by a monolith (all the time keeping the code clean and a good object-oriented with well designed layers and interfaces). When you get to a more mature state of the application, you will more easily see the right places to split to independently deployable services.
The key is to keep together things that should really be coupled. When we try to decouple everything from everything, we end up creating too many layers of interfaces, and this slows us down.
I think it's not a good approach.
DB operation is critical in any process, so it must be in the DAO layer inside de microservice. Why you don't what to implement inside.
Using a service, you loose control, and if you have to change the process logic you have to change DAO service (Affecting to all the services).
In my opinion it is not good idea.
I think that using Services to expose data from a database is ideal due to the flexibility it provides. Development of a REST service to expose some or all of your data as a service provides flexibility to consume the data directly to the UI via AJAX or by other services which can process the data and generate new information. These consumers do not need to implement a DAO and can be in any language. While a REST Service of your entire database is probably not a Micro-Service, a case could be made for breaking this down as Read only for Students, Professors and Classes for exposing on the School Web site(s), with different services for Create, Update and Delete (CUD) available only to the Registrars office desktop applications.
For example building a Service to exposes a statistical value on data will protect the data from examination by a user/program who only needs a statistical value without the requirement of having the service implement an entire DAO for the components of that statistic. Full function databases like SQL Server or Oracle provide a lot of functionality that application developers can use, including complex queries(using indexes), statistics the application of set operations on data.
Having a database service is a completely valid pattern. In fact, this is one of the key examples of where to start to export aspects of a monolith to a micro service in the Building Microservices book.
How to organize your code around such idea is a different issue. Yes, from the db client programmer's stand point, having the same DAO layer on each DB client makes a lot of sense.
The DAO pattern may be suitable to bind your DB to one programming language that you use. But then you need to ask yourself why you are exposing your database as a web service if all access to it will be mediated by the same DAO infrastructure. Or are you going to create one DAO pattern for each client programming language binding?
If all database clients are going to be written on the same programming language, then are you sure you really need to wrap your DB as a microservice? After all, the DB is usually already a remote service with a well-defined network protocol optimized to transfer data fast and reliably. Why adding HTTP on top of it? What are you expecting to gain from adding such complexity?
Another problem with using the DAO pattern is that the DAO structure does not necessarily follow the evolution of the web service. The web service may evolve in a way that does not make old clients incompatible. You may have different clients using different features of the micro service. In this case you are not sharing the same DAO layer structure on each client.
Make sure you are not using RPC-style programming over web services, which does not make much sense. You will be basically throwing away one of the key advantages of micro services, which is the decoupling between service and client.
This post http://www.theserverside.net/tt/articles/showarticle.tss?id=Top5WSMistakes
encourages me to create the web service for business logic layer but many people use it in the data access layer.
I want to create a project where i want to access the same data repository from a desktop application, website and a cell phone. What would you recommend me?
Is there any case it may be a good idea to implement web services to both layers?
The question is too open ended so the answer is: it depends.
What needs do your applications have for the data? Is it just data access or some business logic involved? If it is just accessing of data, do you really want the client to have direct control over it? How similar are the three applications? Do they share functionality or just data?
As I see it there are two main paths you can chose:
1 - expose a web service for the business, with the data hidden behind the web service. This is a good setup if the three clients (I'll call the desktop app, web app and cell phone "clients" since that is what they are) share functionality (i.e. they are different views for the same business model). This avoids duplicating similar business logic in all the clients;
2 - expose the data directly with a web service. This is a good setup if the three clients have nothing in common but just use the same data for different purposes. But in this case, with the three sets of business logic, where are you going to put the logic? In the clients? How will that work for the desktop application (considering you install this desktop app 300 times or so)? You again need some service and the clients to be thin clients not thick ones.
If you take 1) and 2) into consideration you will see that usually it is better to have a service layer in front of your data.
Going back to the "it depends", analyze your special needs first and only then choose the solution that is best suited for your situation.
How about a point 3? make your data access layer into a library (.jar, .dll or whatever technology you are using) and make that available to the (1? 2? 3?) business web services that serve your clients?
Am I correct in thinking that the purpose of a service layer includes the following?
thinning out of domain models (i.e. movement of certain functions like in caching, instantiation)
reduction in dependencies from domain models
API minimisation
Traditionally (when not using Domain Driven Design) the service layer, or 'business layer' as it is also called, is where you code all the business logic for your application. So, for example in an application that deals with giving out bank loans, the service layer is where the code goes that decides whether or not a certain loan should be given.
Obviously, the service layer would require some information about the applicant of the loan to be able to make a decision on her credibility. To retrieve this information, the business layer calls the 'data' or 'repository' layer, which deals with extracting and storing information into the database.
The service layer does not deal with matters like persistence or other infrastructural concerns.
If your design is domain-driven, anthares' answer is true.
In terms of domain-driven design for example the domain service layer is used for operations that cannot be defined in the context of you Domain objects. For example if you have an object CreditCard, a suitable operation in your service layer would be Issue a new Credit Card.
In bigger application is used the pattern Anemic Domain Models, where the domain objects are used only as data containers and the whole business logic is in your domain service layer (this is sometimes refered as anti-pattern, but may be very useful in big solution, with adding another abstraction layer).
In difference solution architectures and patterns, service layer may have difference purpose, though.
Service Layer as the name suggests provides services that are not directly responsibility of any other domain object.
Service Layer also helps in decoupling of responsibilities. Service Layer forms the middle part between Database/persistence layer and the Client/UI/Web layer.
Properly designing the Service Layer allows it to be used from any client be it a Web Client or a Web Service (SOA) or Mobile device.
I've built a RESTful service for the Data Access Layer (DAL) of my architecture:
POST http://example.com/data/User
GET|PUT|DELETE http://example.com/data/User/{UserId}
However, for the Business Logic Layer (BLL), a second non-RESTful service is used:
POST http://example.com/accountapi/register
POST http://example.com/accountapi/login
This BLL service, instead of making calls to the DAL service, it talks directly to the database.
How would you improve this architecture?
Should the BLL service call the DAL service ?
Should I drop the DAL service and only expose the BLL service ?
Should I, somehow, inject business logic on my RESTful DAL service ? If yes, how ?
To answer the main question. No, not really. To answer the secondary questions. None of the above.
REST based architectures do not fit nicely into the standard 3 tier model. The simplistic view of the three tiered model looks like this:
Presentation Layer <-> Business
Logic Layer <-> Data Layer
Consider for a moment breaking the presentation layer into two parts,
Rendering Layer <-> User Interface
Content <-> BLL <-> DAL
If you think about a regular Web application, the browser takes HTML, CSS and Javascript content and renders them visually in a browser. It is the User Interface Content layer that the REST constraints apply to. This is most obvious if you think about the hypermedia constraint. REST interfaces are mean to be navigated just like user interfaces are. REST interfaces return representations of resources.
REST interfaces should return user interface content that is independent of how the user interface will be displayed.
REST Client <-> REST Interface <-> BLL <-> DAL
In my opinion REST clients come in two forms, either very thin media type rendering engines (e.g. Web browsers) or screen scrapers (spiders, mashups). I use the term "screen scraper" loosely because if you choose your media-types wisely it should be trivial for the client to scrape the data out of your user interface content.
Any attempt to expose Business Logic Layers as REST interfaces usually has a few effects. Developers end up asking how to do transactions in REST. They end up creating huge amounts of coupling between the client and the BLL interface because of the need to expose semantically rich representations. They forget all about the hypermedia constraint, because much of that linking information is not available in the business logic layer. And they start to complain about the performance overhead of HTTP and text based content types.
(1) Avoid having your (non-REST) web service business logic layer make further (RESTful) HTTP requests onto the data access layer. Doing so of course would be less efficient than making direct method calls. But much more importantly, it would require you to deploy the BLL web services and the DAL web services onto separate web server instances (or separate clusters). Otherwise you can have a case where all your HTTP worker threads are busy trying to serve up BLL responses, and each is blocked waiting fruitlessly for a free HTTP worker thread to serve it a DAL response. This can lead to stalls (if you do timeout/retry processing) or outright deadlocks (if you don't).
(2 and 3) If your web service clients need both business logic and data access, provide those as a unified set of services. Internally they both depend on the same data access layer method calls: it's just that the data oriented web service implementations make just one data access layer call while the business logic oriented web service implementations may make many DAL calls. You do most definitely want to structure the BLL and DAL layers separately beneath the web service layer though.
I like to think of the web services as just the part of the presentation layer oriented towards "users" who happen to be other programs.
If this is the same application, then you should probably have the BLL layer call the DAL layer directly in code instead of using a service call again. That would keep it more performant while keeping the fundamental purposes of the code separate (high cohesion).
Probably so. Your services should generally be course-grained components that perform a business function. Saving a user in the database isn't a business function, it's a specific implementation. The Register function abstracts that notion into a business function. The BLL layer can then enforce things like password strength, password encryption, uniqueness of usernames, etc. that aren't directly related to data access.
Probably not. See #2.
The basic client-server model (even when implemented using questionable interfaces) had a presentation layer, a business layer, and a data layer. Are the directory and discovery methods using webservices models considered a entirely new layer? I would argue that the discovery layer is actually just expanding the role of the data layer to include information on where a service can be found. I am struggling to understand the interplay between webservices and the MVC framework and I am trying to understand the bigger picture as to where the directory and discovery components fit into that framework.
I would say that there is an additional layer -- the service layer -- that sits between your business layer and the presentation layer or your business layer and the data layer depending on whether you're doing a thin- or thick-"client" implementation. This layer would encapsulate service discovery and delivery, including marshaling/unmarshaling data for transfer. See Fowler's Principles of Enterprise Application Architecture Service Layer description. In his concept the service layer sits between the business layer (domain model) and the presentation layer (UI). This concept would apply to a thin-client or web-based client implementation.
I would say there are not basically 3 tiers in the web services model.
Web services is essentially SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), which can imply a multi-tier (n-tier) model. It refers to distributed computing and could be scaled up to a massive system with hundreds of "tiers".
I would agree with you that conceptually, getting your data from a service as compared to a database, could be similar to getting data from other data sourced like databases, etc., and that this could be conceived of as an additional function of the data access layer.
Of course it also depends on semantics. Often "tiers" refers to discreet parts of the overall system (i.e. front-end, middle-tier, back-end data sources, other tiers such as integration with web services, etc.); while "layers" often refers to the vertical layers in the code such as presentation, controller, business logic, data access, etc.