Gentile writes about how he feels that developers don’t get the
distributed paradigm when developing in .NET and that the
documentation and literature doesn’t help any.
I’m not sure I agree with his premise, however, that it is
normally a good idea to distribute the tiers onto different
hardware. In fact, my usual approach is to encourage multiple tiers
to reside on the same front-end box in such a way that you can
duplicate those boxes for redundancy and scaling using network load
balancing on the front end.
This doesn’t bring us back to client/server systems: n-tier
architectures are logical software designs and not necessarily tied
to physical deployment designs. Client/server was all about long
lived connections to the database and that was what didn’t scale.
N-tier is all about get in quick, get what you want, and get out.
It’s also about separating presentation from business logic from
data storage. None of that implies multiple hardware layers.
Sam claims that deploying the middle tier on separate boxes
usually gives far better performance relative to hardware costs.
I’m not sure that my experience supports that conclusion. It might
be true for very high transaction systems but, on a smaller scale,
communication costs between the layers can add significant
In recent times, the occasions where I have supported the
“middle tier” on separate hardware have been in what we’re learning
to call Service Oriented situations where the functionality has
been exposed either with remoting or, more favourably, with a web
service. In general, this has been for one of two reasons: security
where it is possible to put an additional firewall between the
front-end external presentation hardware and the underlying
internal service (thanks to avoiding the blunderbuss DCOM approach
to firewalls); and for deploying subsystems (such as search
engines) where this key functionality might be extended, scaled,
upgraded, or otherwise changed completely independent from the rest
of the system.
What I have found to be typical in data-driven distributed
systems is that scalability is more of a problem on the back-end
database than it is on front-end web servers. It is relatively
cheap in development cost, maintenance, and hardware cost to build
a system where you can add an extra web server to the cluster if
you need a bit more horsepower there. What is much more challenging
is designing your application in a way that allows you to scale the
database: while front-end hardware is cheap, scaling your database
up gets increasingly expensive for decreasing returns and scaling
out is something you really need to plan for up front and may
require some compromises on things like referential integrity.
I’m not a big fan of distributed transaction through the DTC
using COM+/ES in systems that often end up using only one resource
manager at a time (say to a SQL Server or Oracle database). Back
working with COM+/DNA/VB6 it made life much easier and was a price
worth paying but with .NET and the managed data providers giving
tighter access to the database I don’t think that is always the
case. This is the foundation underlying my
declarative SQL transactions code
and code generator where I support ES-like attributes but rely on
SQL Server transactions. I recognise that for large systems where
you’ve had to partition and scale out your data the DTC is
necessary but I’ve worked on a fair number of transactional
e-commerce systems that needed front-end scalability but hit
against a single database server at the back.
Sam’s starting point was looking at data access options with
ADO.NET and he comments on Rob Howard’s advice to use DataReaders
unless you absolutely need DataSets. I’m in agreement with Sam in
finding any reason not to use DataSets however I was firmly in the
pass DataReaders camp as being the fastest way to get data to your
output. Latterly I’ve had mixed feelings about this. It is true
that you can’t pass a DataReader across a boundary but exploding
the data into object form only to repeat the process as you bind it
to output controls in ASP.NET also seems like anathema and not
entirely distant from the criticism of the bloated DataSet. In some
cases I’ve compromised on separation and passed a DataReader up to
the presentation layer and in cases where I know I need (or am
likely to need) to cross a boundary, I’ve transferred the data into
“behaviour-less” (state-only) objects. These are readily serialised
for transmission by remoting or web service and you can still use
databinding for presentation.
In conclusion I am saying that using data binding and
DataReaders in the presentation layer doesn’t necessarily mean that
there isn’t a careful separation of presentation and business logic
and doesn’t have to mean we’re heading back down the road to
monolithic client/server applications. The logical and physical
architectures of distributed systems don’t necessarily have to