I have two ASP.NET Core apps running on the same server and they share many dependencies.
I want to put all these common dependencies in a directory in order to save disk space. But I don't know how the config the apps needs to be so they search this particular directory in order to load them.
Thanks in advance
As far as I can see, there is conceptual complexity and misunderstanding here. Before I explain this, I would like to inform you that go over some assumptions.
There are only 2 web applications(could be API projects or different). I assume you don't have any projects. I have already asked you.
Dependencies are a big problem throughout the development process. And we developers are responsible handle this. Evolve the Tightly-Coupled systems to Loosely-coupled system gives us many advantages. For this reason, we aim to reduce the dependencies of the applications by using many technics, design patterns throughout the development process. I recommend you looking for dependencies and coupling concepts. I share some information that will be a starting point for you.
After looking for it, you will become aware that you need to separate dependencies at the application level rather than at the disk level. You will find that have many technic and approach. I am sure that after looking it for you take action will be easy.
Here are points;
https://dev.to/franiglesias/dependencies-and-coupling-4365
https://stackify.com/dependency-inversion-principle/
What is the difference between loose coupling and tight coupling in the object oriented paradigm?
I'm trying to improve the structure of my development, and stripping back to the very beginning while learning Swift. This is not language dependent though (the edit is not appropriate).
Something has been troubling me for sometime, and I hope someone can take the time to help me.
I'm making a simple game where questions are stored in a binary tree, so am creating a class for the binary tree (BinaryTree.swift).
My ViewController will take care of interactions with the interface (buttons etc.)
I need to also create the business logic for the game (which question should be returned, keeping score etc.). The logic for this type of game is trivial, but I need to understand principles before I scale up to larger projects.
Problem
Is it reasonable to create a class in a separate file solely for the game logic (GameLogic.swift), as I'm concerned that it is not a reasonable way to structure this app.
In all honesty, it is up to the developer to choose how they structure their data. The MVC, or Model View Controller model is still alive and well but I choose not to use it. Without a who lot of information on what exactly would go into GameLogic.swift, I would say go ahead and try it. Maybe another developer with more experience than me can give you another idea!
I am making a web browser made in VB.Net, and I do have people using it from around the world, but I don't think all of them can understand everything it can do. Does anyone know how to create a sort of language pack that users can change the language of every label on the form? The only way I can think of is editing all the labels to another language, then publishing the application again, but that is a lot of work because I do use a lot of labels... any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
What you're looking to do is called "localization." While localization itself is not a difficult topic to understand, depending on the complexity of your application, and the number and diversity of languages you want to support, it can become a rather involved task.
The general concept behind localizing an application is separating translatable elements (like all of the strings in your buttons, labels, and menus, or any images containing words) from the application itself, and storing them as resources which can then be chosen appropriately based on user preference or region, and then loaded into the application dynamically. There are a vast number of ways to accomplish this, and which you choose is entirely up to you, and how much effort you're willing to support. Techniques can range from loading strings from text files, storing and retrieving resources from a database, to using .NET's built-in localization functionality which stores assets in external resource files.
Localization as a topic is incredibly broad, so there is no single method that can be discussed without first knowing your specific goals and constraints. Your best plan of action is to start researching, and find a technique which seems most suitable for your project.
Google: ".net localization"
I have 2 applications that are going to be built (possibly a 3rd API), all are going to use the same database. What is the best way to use the same models across all applications.
Also, what are some of the caveats you have experienced or foresee with this method. Looking for the best solution to this.
Rails, as opinionated software, prefers a single app, rather than shared models. I've tried it both ways. Are you going to just have copies of the models that can get out of sync? Are you still planning to use Rails' migrations? When you have multiple apps, migrations become difficult. Do you use just one app for migrations? Then you lose the ability to check in migrations along with the code it refers to. Automating builds can become very difficult. You can possibly find a way share migrations too, but that requires some source code management sleight-of-hand which ultimately makes it more difficult to do separate apps and still get everything Rails has to offer. At that point you may want to look into Sinatra.
On the other hand, there's a lot of organizing you can do in a single app that keeps the model domain shared, yet separates the controllers, such as using namespaces or engines. I'd recommend those techniques.
Everyone I work with is obsessed with the data-centric approach to enterprise development and hates the idea of using custom collections/objects. What is the best way to convince them otherwise?
Do it by example and tread lightly. Anything stronger will just alienate you from the rest of the team.
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
No single person has all the answers.
If you are working on legacy code (e.g., apps ported from .NET 1.x to 2.0 or 3.5) then it would be a bad idea to depart from datasets. Why change something that already works?
If you are, however, creating a new apps, there a few things that you can cite:
Appeal to experiencing pain in maintaining apps that stick with DataSets
Cite performance benefits for your new approach
Bait them with a good middle-ground. Move to .NET 3.5, and promote LINQ to SQL, for instance: while still sticking to data-driven architecture, is a huge, huge departure to string-indexed data sets, and enforces... voila! Custom collections -- in a manner that is hidden from them.
What is important is that whatever approach you use you remain consistent, and you are completely honest with the pros and cons of your approaches.
If all else fails (e.g., you have a development team that utterly refuses to budge from old practices and is skeptical of learning new things), this is a very, very clear sign that you've outgrown your team it's time to leave your company!
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
Seconded. The whole idea that "enterprise development" is somehow distinct from (and usually the implication is 'more important than') normal development really irks me.
If there really is a benefit for using some technology, then you'll need to come up with a considered list of all the pros and cons that would occur if you switched.
Present this list to your co workers along with explanations and examples for each one.
You have to be realistic when creating this list. You can't just say "Saves us lots of time!!! WIN!!" without addressing the fact that sometimes it is going to take MORE time, will require X months to come up to speed on the new tech, etc. You have to show concrete examples where it will save time, and exactly how.
Likewise you can't just skirt over the cons as if they don't matter, your co-workers will call you on it.
If you don't do these things, or come across as just pushing what you personally like, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you'll just get a reputation for being the guy who's full of enthusiasm and energy but has no idea about anything.
BTW. Look out for this particular con. It will trump everything, unless you have a lot of strong cases for all your other stuff:
Requires 12+ months work porting our existing code. You lose.
Of course, "it depends" on the situation. Sometimes DataSets or DataTables are more suited, like if it really is pretty light business logic, flat hierarchy of entities/records, or featuring some versioning capabilities.
Custom object collections shine when you want to implement a deep hierarchy/graph of objects that cannot be efficiently represented in flat 2D tables. What you can demonstrate is a large graph of objects and getting certain events to propagate down the correct branches without invoking inappropriate objects in other branches. That way it is not necessary to loop or Select through each and every DataTable just to get the child records.
For example, in a project I got involved in two and half years ago, there was a UI module that is supposed to display questions and answer controls in a single WinForms DataGrid (to be more specific, it was Infragistics' UltraGrid). Some more tricky requirements
The answer control for a question can be anything - text box, check box options, radio button options, drop-down lists, or even to pop up a custom dialog box that may pull more data from a web service.
Depending on what the user answered, it can trigger more sub-questions to appear directly under the parent question. If a different answer is given later, it should expose another set of sub-questions (if any) related to that answer.
The original implementation was written entirely in DataSets, DataTables, and arrays. The amount of looping through the hundreds of rows for multiple tables was purely mind-bending. It did not help the programmer came from a C++ background attempting to ref everything (hello, objects living in the heap use reference variables, like pointers!). Nobody, not even the originally programmer, could explain why the code is doing what it does. I came into the scene more than six months after this, and it was stil flooded with bugs. No wonder the 2nd-generation developer I took over from decided to quit.
Two months of tying to fix the chaotic mess, I took it upon myself to redesign the entire module into an object-oriented graph to solve this problem. yeap, complete with abstract classes (to render different answer control on a grid cell depending on question type), delegates and eventing. The end result was a 2D dataGrid binded to a deep hierarchy of questions, naturally sorted according to the parent-child arrangement. When a parent question's answer changed, it would raise an event to the children questions and they would automatically show/hide their rows in the grid according to the parent's answer. Only question objects down that path were affected. The UI responsiveness of this solution compared to the old method was by orders of magnitude.
Ironically, I wanted to post a question that was the exact opposite of this. Most of the programmers I've worked with have gone with the custom data objects/collections approach. It breaks my heart to watch someone with their SQL Server table definition open on one monitor, slowly typing up a matching row-wrapper class in Visual Studio in another monitor (complete with private properties and getters-setters for each column). It's especially painful if they're also prone to creating 60-column tables. I know there are ORM systems that can build these classes automagically, but I've seen the manual approach used much more frequently.
Engineering choices always involve trade-offs between the pros and cons of the available options. The DataSet-centric approach has its advantages (db-table-like in-memory representation of actual db data, classes written by people who know what they're doing, familiar to large pool of developers etc.), as do custom data objects (compile-type checking, users don't need to learn SQL etc.). If everyone else at your company is going the DataSet route, it's at least technically possible that DataSets are the best choice for what they're doing.
Datasets/tables aren't so bad are they?
Best advise I can give is to use it as much as you can in your own code, and hopefully through peer reviews and bugfixes, the other developers will see how code becomes more readable. (make sure to push the point when these occurrences happen).
Ultimately if the code works, then the rest is semantics is my view.
I guess you can trying selling the idea of O/R mapping and mapper tools. The benefit of treating rows as objects is pretty powerful.
I think you should focus on the performance. If you can create an application that shows the performance difference when using DataSets vs Custom Entities. Also, try to show them Domain Driven Design principles and how it fits with entity frameworks.
Don't make it a religion or faith discussion. Those are hard to win (and is not what you want anyway)
Don't frame it the way you just did in your question. The issue is not getting anyone to agree that this way or that way is the general way they should work. You should talk about how each one needs to think in order to make the right choice at any given time. give an example for when to use dataSet, and when not to.
I had developers using dataTables to store data they fetched from the database and then have business logic code using that dataTable... And I showed them how I reduced the time to load a page from taking 7 seconds of 100% CPU (on the web server) to not being able to see the CPU line move at all.. by changing the memory object from dataTable to Hash table.
So take an example or case that you thing is better implemented differently, and win that battle. Don't fight the a high level war...
If Interoperability is/will be a concern down the line, DataSet is definitely not the right direction to go in. You CAN expose DataSets/DataTables over a service but whether you SHOULD or is debatable. If you are talking .NET->.NET you're probably Ok, otherwise you are going to have a very unhappy client developer from the other side of the fence consuming your service
You can't convince them otherwise. Pick a smaller challenge or move to a different organization. If your manager respects you see if you can do a project in the domain-driven style as a sort of technology trial.
If you can profile, just Do it and profile. Datasets are heavier then a simple Collection<T>
DataReaders are faster then using Adapters...
Changing behavior in an objects is much easier than massaging a dataset
Anyway: Just Do It, ask for forgiveness not permission.
Most programmers don't like to stray out of their comfort zones (note that the intersection of the 'most programmers' set and the 'Stack Overflow' set is the probably the empty set). "If it worked before (or even just worked) then keep on doing it". The project I'm currently on required a lot of argument to get the older programmers to use XML/schemas/data sets instead of just CSV files (the previous version of the software used CSV's). It's not perfect, the schemas aren't robust enough at validating the data. But it's a step in the right direction. The code I develop uses OO abstractions on the data sets rather than passing data set objects around. Generally, it's best to teach by example, one small step at a time.
There is already some very good advice here but you'll still have a job to convince your colleagues if all you have to back you up is a few supportive comments on stackoverflow.
And, if they are as sceptical as they sound, you are going to need more ammo.
First, get a copy of Martin Fowler's "Patterns of Enterprise Architecture" which contains a detailed analysis of a variety of data access techniques.
Read it.
Then force them all to read it.
Job done.
data-centric means less code-complexity.
custom objects means potentially hundreds of additional objects to organize, maintain, and generally live with. It's also going to be a bit faster.
I think it's really a code-complexity vs performance question, which can be answered by the needs of your app.
Start small. Is there a utility app you can use to illustrate your point?
For instance, at a place where I worked, the main application had a complicated build process, involving changing config files, installing a service, etc.
So I wrote an app to automate the build process. It had a rudimentary WinForms UI. But since we were moving towards WPF, I changed it to a WPF UI, while keeping the WinForms UI as well, thanks to Model-View-Presenter. For those who weren't familiar with Model-View-Presenter, it was an easily-comprehensible example they could refer to.
Similarly, find something small where you can show them what a non-DataSet app would look like without having to make a major development investment.