Core principles and tenets for designing a system. is this really web 3.0?
The core principles would include understanding of RDF, RDFS, OWL and
how arbitrary knowledge can be represented using these specs.
Understanding of what reasoners can do with semantic data is essential.
Then comes the idea of intelligent agents.
Then comes understanding of why this is all needed and why it was designed that way.
This would give you the clue about how promising (or not) is this technology.
For the software architect it would be good to know how OWL data can be efficiently stored(in RDBMS or in any other way for example).
As for myself I find this interesting but in reality it is yet very far from the
point where average users can benefit from it on the regular Web.
Related
CakePHP Applications being made in our company tends to become unmaintainable as it becomes more complex. I figured that one specific reason is inheritance which makes the functions in child classes depends a lot on it's parent classes and vice-versa (implementing template method pattern). Why is CakePHP designed this way and not friendly in using Dependency Injection, Strategies, or Factory patterns?
There is not such a bad design as you claim in the framework. Sure, there are probably things that could be done better but I would like to see a more substantial critic including solid arguments and examples. I assume you're not using the framework as it was intended.
Let me quote the first paragraph from this page.
According to Eric Evans, Domain-driven design (DDD) is not a technology or a methodology. It’s a different way of thinking about how to organize your applications and structure your code. This way of thinking complements very well the popular MVC architecture. The domain model provides a structural view of the system. Most of the time, applications don’t change, what changes is the domain. MVC, however, doesn’t really tell you how your model should be structured. That’s why some frameworks don’t force you to use a specific model structure, instead, they let your model evolve as your knowledge and expertise grows.
You're not showing code (for a reason?) so I guess your problem comes from stuffing everything into the table objects in src/Model/Table/ or doing something similar.
But you're totally free to create a folder structure like
/src/Service
/src/Model/Domain
and then simply instantiate services as you need them in your controller actions. A service could be for example \App\Service\User\Registration and using objects from App\Model\Domain\User.
I agree that the framework in fact doesn't provide any recommendation or template structure for how this could look like. For exactly this topic there is a discussion going on here. Because of a lack of such a structure I've started working on a plugin that provides this. The plugin doesn't require but suggest the usage of DI containers for the people who want them.
Given the whole fancy topic around DI and DDD so far I would say there is not the one way to get things right but different paths as long as the code is easy to maintain. And honestly, as long as this goal is archived I really don't care about how you call it. :) I think many people tend do make this topic to academic instead of simply trying to be practical.
Not everybody is even needing that structure. It depends on if you're building a RAD CRUD application or a more complex app. Not every application needs a DDD approach. There are so many shades of gray when it comes to design the business layer, no matter how the framework would do it, somebody would always complain about it.
I personally almost never missed a DI container in CakePHP, not even in the biggest project having more than ~560 database tables which was a hospital management solution and it just worked well.
I would suggest you to ask a more specific question about your approach how you structured your code and showing your structure and code and then asking for advice on how to improve it instead of blaming the tool you're using in the first place without providing context.
Unfortunately CakePHP v3 can not compare to the Zend3/Laminas, Symfony or Laravel.It is 7-8 years behind the other frameworks.If you are using cake for years or it is your 1st and last framework it is normal to not realise that.But if you have to use it after Zend 3... cake seems like really bad ecosystem.
Bad documentation
Bad ORM
Poor Routing system
Bad Templating engine
Bad idea to mix Data Mapper and Active Record
DIC is totally missing
Components - not good but not terrible
...
And many more thinks that should not be underestimated like - lack of GOOD tutorials, pluigns/addons/packages
The above thinks make developers to follow bad practices that adds a lot of technical depth.
If you care just for - it works! But not how it works and why it is bad, cake will fit ok for you.
Cake can not scale as good as Symfony/Laminas if you are doing big project.(yea AWS/GC can help for scaling a lot of thinks but not for scaling source code)
Cake doesn't allow you rapid development like Laravel/Symfony for decent project.
I'm wondering who and WHY would start a new project today using Cake as it has zero benefits over the other frameworks.
Probably only devs who used only Cake for last decade and do not want to start learning new technologies or devs that thinks SOLID is just a fancy hype with zero benefits like design patterns, DRY and KISS
CakePHP framework supplies user interaction with databases using Active record, it means that exist a high coupling between business layer and database layer which has negative effects in unit testing and because of that the framework is not friendly with Dependency Injection. The same issue happens with Factory pattern, high coupling mentioned before makes more difficult use simulated objects in unit testing.
Hope it helps!
Alberto
I am beginning in UML and software analyse and i do not understand how UML and diagrams can influence coding and software architecture while we can directly build the code and its data base without diagrams.
I read lot of tutorials abouat the subject but not enough to understand the utility of UML in coding.
I understand everey diagram and its role. That is not my problem but i do not yet understand their roles after the analyse and design phase.
So what is the role of UML in coding phase of a software ?
Thank you.
The comment by #xmojmr already puts it right. UML creates a model (hence the M in UML) of a system. A model reduces information of a system to a level so it is a) manageable and b) complete. Human brains are not computers and you need a means of communication what the system is all about. You can do that as pure code, as paper document and as UML model. A combination of all is not uncommon. As long as you have tiny systems you can live with pur code and tools like Doxygen. But once it starts getting complex you need some handles. UML offers these to end users, architects, testers, developers, managers, etc. Along with UML you will also need a methodology. UML delivers the syntax how to document a system. But you need some structure above to write a nice novel.
UML-based models play an essential role for coding/implementing a software system in model-based (or model-driven) development. The basic idea is that you start making a model of your problem domain (the domain model), then you derive from it a platform-independent design model, which can be transformed into platform-specific implementation models (e.g. for Java- or C#-based platforms) that are finally encoded in the target languages.
The most prominent part of model-based development is the encoding of model classes (forming the model layer in an MVC architecture for apps) based on a data model (a UML class model) that has been derived from an information design model, which was obtained from a domain information model (where all these information/data models are UML class models).
You can find an instructive example of model-based development in my tutorial book Engineering Front-End Web Apps with Plain JavaScript.
This one is in my point of view a duplicate of that other question. It can't be flagged because there is no accepted answer. The related question on meta stackexchange does not provide a clear solution to that situation.
I think my personal answer was relevant and is applicable to the current question.
To be synthetic, Martin Fowler considers current uses of UML. I think he describe the current practices. Perhaps should these evolve ?
Perhaps would the initial question be the right place to discuss ?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but here goes.
I'm currently looking into some different techniques to model a business proces. I need to find a suitable option for my company which develops all kind of web applications.
What i have found so far:
UML, specificly the activity diagrams
Flow charts
Windows workflow foundation
Business process modeling
I had a dive into the world of workflows but it's mainly about automating a process of a company and thats not what I'm looking for. My focus is on software and the process within.
If anyone else knows some other technique or can tell me the advantages or disadvanteges of the techniques I allready found that would be much appreciated because I'm a little stuck right now.
Right now BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation) and UML activity diagrams are the two most popular options for that.
I think of BPMN as the right choice when you are modeling the business aspects of the organization and move to Activity Diagrams as soon as you drill down to the technical design of the software system (as a core component of the UML language, activity diagrams are a better fit when having to combine workflow information with other views of the system, expressed also as UML diagrams like class diagrams or sequence diagrams).
Note that now a UML profile for BPMN is being created which means that you will be able to mix BPMN and UML diagrams in the same project
I suggest you consider ISO/IEC 24744. It will give you a very different perspective, since it does not use the ubiquitous "organisation as machine" metaphor, going for a more opportunistic, people-oriented viewpoint.
In other words, ISO/IEC 24744 does not represent a business process as a workflow where the process to follow is the driver. Instead, a business process is represented through the work products that are involved and the people that act upon them. The process performed plays an important but secondary role.
If you are interested in why this is so, or what the advantages are, let me know and I'll be happy to elaborate.
I think you are asking about transforming your business requirements/rules into technical requirements and then into a design? After that you will implement this design into code.
Am not sure if this is what you are asking about..
I want to develope a big project, but I really don't know what is the best way to model my project. Do I even need to model my project?
What are the most practical OOP software modeling methods in real world projects? What are the best and most useful ones?
Many times its needed to capture the complex structure of classes you have in you OO system, so class diagrams from UML are used for modeling. You can also want to describe interactions of classes, for that sequence diagrams are useful. There are also other UML diagrams and each has its purpose.
If you are looking for an approach to modeling, try looking at Unified Process, which is adevelopment method, which is created by authors of UML and uses UML quite heavily and also describes how UML can be used.
Agile methodology is currently what is recommended. If you add a slice of UML then it would be better :-)
Modeling (design) is the most important part of every project.
In fact as times goes by, we sacrifice performance to gain higher level of design.
Why .NET framework is popular (compare to old tools) ? In most cases its libraries are wrappers over traditional win32 APIs, a waste of performance, instead it provides better design, which makes it easy to learn and use.
So if your project have a good design it would be easy to understand, develop, debug, maintain and extend.
Another example is OOP itself which has classes, interfaces... and bunch of constructor/destructor calls. OOP concepts are borrowed from psychiatry and the way human being see the world.
Here are two different concepts:
1) Design methodology
2) Project management methodology
There are many and I don't name good or bad. Each of them fits a scenario.
About design methodology I prefer DDD (Domain Driven Design) as it maps the industry domain terminology and concepts. So if you have a decision problem about what to do if A->B->C happened, simply you can ask a domain professional and he will say what they do in real world. DDD is good for old enough industries that have cumulative wisdom. I'm not gonna write more about design since we don't know about the project.
Project management methodologies (like agile) are the way you build the building from the map (design). The goal of project management is to use resources optimal (time, money, human resources...). This is done through work breakdown structure and make work as parallel as possible. The most known project management methodology is the traditional one in which we do everything in sequence, as civil engineers do (foundation, structure, walls...). This was good for many centuries until last decades (software industry), since in traditional project management you know where you are, where you want to go, and how to reach there. This way you can buy your furniture for a home that's a land yet !
Software industry has very rapid changes in tools and methods because is was new and no best practices were founded on thousands of failed projects. Many times when a project started it has changes because of changes in developing tools and frameworks. Other source of change is the scope of the project (where to go). Software is an intangible product so you fall in the trap of time estimations easily. For software development best practice are iterative methodologies.
Iterative methodologies suggest, a working incomplete solution which you make more complete in next iterate, rather than a non working partially complete one. This has a time overhead, instead, you sure the solution works and if any problem, you find in early stages. That's why we have nightly builds !
The best is Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate others are too cumbersome. Otherwise use light tools like yuml see http://askuml.com for samples.
Are ORM frameworks such as Entity Framework, Linq to SQL, Subsonic, NHibernate promote good programming practice or just a tools to speed up the development?
Should we used this technologies inside the presentation layer?
They can do both. With any techlonogy there are good practices and there are bad.
ORM Frameworks can or cannot speed up development, a good design has more impact on development time than the tools used. The advantages are getting all you business logic in one place and removing it from the data portion.
I would not use them in a presentation layer, but have you presentation or UI layer call a business layer which would call a data layer.
Rapid Application Development always.
As a freelance contract programmer my ability to satisfy clients is directly related to my productivity. On any new job I generally have a few days, at most, to show some kind of results. So I'm entirely oriented towards finding and using the best tools to help me produce good programs in the shortest amount of time.
Within that constraint, I hope I pay attention to good programming practices. By the best practices in the world are no good to me, or to my client, if the project is abandoned or given to someone else while I'm still modelling or refactoring.
Usually both. Sometimes you might want to write your sql by hand, but most of the time defining a model using any ORM framework will allow your object flow in your application to flow better.
Which 1 is correct?
Design 1
+Presentation : *BLL
+BLL : *DAL
+DAL : *ORM Framework
Design 2
+Presentation : *BLL
+BLL : *DAL, *Framework
Design 3
+Presentation : *BLL, *ORM
+BLL : *DAL, *ORM
+DAL : *ORM Framework
+projectname
*reference
if none is correct please post your design..