|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface logic but that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier implementation by definition? Or does n-tier necessitate a network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS and SQL Server, i.e. COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered programming? If a solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers, does this qualify as 'n-tier'? Additionally and more broadly, ... - "n-tier" - "3-tier" - "distributed architecture" - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)" I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers throwing these terms around interchangeably. I have my own opinion about these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was wondering what the opinions are of others in this newsgroup community. Any thoughts? Thanks, Jon Jon Davis wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I have a couple questions. First of all, would anyone consider a IMO, they're mostly synonymous. I would imagine that many people don't > multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are > seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface > logic but that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier > implementation by definition? Or does n-tier necessitate a > network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS and SQL Server, i.e. > COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered programming? If a > solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers, does this > qualify as 'n-tier'? > > Additionally and more broadly, ... > > - "n-tier" > - "3-tier" > - "distributed architecture" > - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)" > > I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers > throwing these terms around interchangeably. I have my own opinion > about these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was > wondering what the opinions are of others in this newsgroup > community. Any thoughts? consider a design to be n-tier unless the layers are isolated service processes (which may or may not be distributed to multiple machines). Personally, I find that distinction to be irrelevant in most cases - if a design has be properly separated into loosely coupled, highly cohesive layers, then the distribution of those layers to isolated service processes or separate machines is a straightforward, well-solved problem (.NET remoting, SOAP, etc.). -cd Jon,
Of course, but not as a Tier application but as a layer application. In other words the layers exist on the client as an integrated assembly and not as more assemblys as with a multi Tier application. Just my thought, Cor Jon Davis wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I have a couple questions. First of all, would anyone consider a I am old fashioned:> multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are > seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface logic but > that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier implementation by definition? > Or does n-tier necessitate a network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS > and SQL Server, i.e. COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered > programming? If a solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers, > does this qualify as 'n-tier'? > > Additionally and more broadly, ... > > - "n-tier" > - "3-tier" > - "distributed architecture" > - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)" > > I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers > throwing these terms around interchangeably. I have my own opinion about > these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was wondering what > the opinions are of others in this newsgroup community. Any thoughts? tiers = something that can but not necessarily do run on different physical systems layers = logical division within a tier so you can have 3 tiers: browser web app database where the web app has 3 layers: presentation business logic data access Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term tier for what I am calling layer. Which I think confuses matters a bit. But by using the old definition I think all your questions is rather easily answered. Arne "Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:VNoKg.8680$_q4.387@dukeread09...> I think you quite modern and right on target.> I am old fashioned: The definitions you gave below are correct. > Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term I never seen ms get it wrong.> tier for what I am calling layer. > Which I think confuses matters a bit. Happy Tiers and Layers - Michael S "Michael S" <n*@no.no> wrote in message
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/reference/data/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnaspnettut/html/aspnet_tutorial01_dataaccesslayer_cs.asp
news:egMFXgyzGHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term >> tier for what I am calling layer. >> Which I think confuses matters a bit. > > I never seen ms get it wrong. The link to the above URL originally on the MSDN home page and currently in Visual Studio 2005 Start Page is clearly labeled "3-tier Architecture with ASP.NET 2.0", but this is clearly a programmatic layering discussion without respect to physical isolation. Jon Jon,
I completely agree with Arne, the meaning of my reply was the same, I have forever had the idea that the Tier part on MSDN is written by the marketing department of Microsoft. The Tier philosophy is a part of central processing with 3270 or VT100 processing and not for real advanced Client/Server processing, as it is done with Windowforms applications. However, just my idea, Cor Show quoteHide quote "Jon Davis" <j**@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> schreef in bericht news:eUWQvy1zGHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Michael S" <n*@no.no> wrote in message > news:egMFXgyzGHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>> Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term >>> tier for what I am calling layer. >>> Which I think confuses matters a bit. >> >> I never seen ms get it wrong. > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/reference/data/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnaspnettut/html/aspnet_tutorial01_dataaccesslayer_cs.asp > > The link to the above URL originally on the MSDN home page and currently > in Visual Studio 2005 Start Page is clearly labeled "3-tier Architecture > with ASP.NET 2.0", but this is clearly a programmatic layering discussion > without respect to physical isolation. > > Jon > > Well, maybe they got the terms wrong with layer and tier, but not the idea.
They still got the concepts right, and don't mix them. I've read a book from microsoft press that got all normalforms in datamodeling wrong by one notch. Hence their second normal form was the third (or was it first), all this while giving examples that held true for the correct form. So maybe I shouldn't defend ms, but go back to only say that Arne was correct in his definitions. But to help the OP Jon: You should check out SOA, and why the typical 3-tier/3-layer architecture people was used to in COM and VB; just don't hack it no more and make for a troublesome architecture. If you want to learn why SOA may be good and want to read for yourself, please do. But I am willing to write a few paragraphs on the subject if you want me to. Partly to help you, but mostly for my himem.sys joke, that people got really angry about, and by so; I need some redemption. But this thread is getting old so you must say ping. Happy Architecture - Michael S
Structures, Classes for storing data
Changing the text of a Command Button using SetWindowText Validating emails Please, can anyone convert the following dot net snippet to pascal VB .NET FTP how to add dynamic tooltip when dragging scrollbar of datagridview what is wrong with this Convert Access Table to Text File using VB get create table script for a SQL Server object StreamWriter, FileStream throwing uncatchable NullReferenceException |
|||||||||||||||||||||||