Comments on: My default asp.net architecture http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:54:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Thomas http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-2/#comment-33283 Thomas Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:49:55 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-33283 Very interesting read indeed. One little offtopic question: You've put emphasize in the fact that the Repository Project is the only project talking to the Database. Lets assume you use Asp.Net Forms authentication, wich needs a DB-Connection. How do you handle this? Very interesting read indeed.
One little offtopic question: You’ve put emphasize in the fact that the Repository Project is the only project talking to the Database. Lets assume you use Asp.Net Forms authentication, wich needs a DB-Connection. How do you handle this?

]]> By: Ismail Mayat http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-2/#comment-32594 Ismail Mayat Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:51:51 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32594 Chris, This is very useful would mind putting up a sample solution im sure many would find it very useful. Many thanks Ismail Chris,

This is very useful would mind putting up a sample solution im sure many would find it very useful.

Many thanks

Ismail

]]> By: Weekly Links #18 | GrantPalin.com http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-2/#comment-32573 Weekly Links #18 | GrantPalin.com Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:44:48 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32573 [...] My default asp.net architecture Interesting reading. [...] [...] My default asp.net architecture Interesting reading. [...]

]]> By: Chris Brandsma http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-2/#comment-32504 Chris Brandsma Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:53:10 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32504 Me claiming OCD is just my way of saying: I know this is irrational, I have no valid reason for (except for the nagging underline that ReSharper adds to my files), and I accept that. As for the projects vs folders. I typically maintain one config file. If I need more information in a library that would naturally come from the config, I write a config section, just like NHibernate, Log4Net, or subsonic does. They are actually very easy to write -- I'll have to post on that later. As for the other stuff: that is why I stopped using Nant and Cruise Control. They were maintenance issue. I switch to JetBrains TeamCity and haven't looked back. Me claiming OCD is just my way of saying: I know this is irrational, I have no valid reason for (except for the nagging underline that ReSharper adds to my files), and I accept that.

As for the projects vs folders. I typically maintain one config file. If I need more information in a library that would naturally come from the config, I write a config section, just like NHibernate, Log4Net, or subsonic does. They are actually very easy to write — I’ll have to post on that later.

As for the other stuff: that is why I stopped using Nant and Cruise Control. They were maintenance issue. I switch to JetBrains TeamCity and haven’t looked back.

]]> By: trasa http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32501 trasa Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:16:01 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32501 How much more complicated - one is a folder, the other is an entire new project and assembly that you have to care for, set the build configuration, deploy, possibly manage .config files, and so on. Big difference. And this isn't so much directed at you, Chris - but I've noticed hearing this a lot from many different people - when did using Obsessive Compulsive Disorder become a way to "rationalize" behaviors? OCD tendencies by their definition are irrational. How much more complicated – one is a folder, the other is an entire new project and assembly that you have to care for, set the build configuration, deploy, possibly manage .config files, and so on. Big difference.

And this isn’t so much directed at you, Chris – but I’ve noticed hearing this a lot from many different people – when did using Obsessive Compulsive Disorder become a way to “rationalize” behaviors? OCD tendencies by their definition are irrational.

]]> By: Chris Brandsma http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32413 Chris Brandsma Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:53:16 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32413 @Milton: I keep them all in one solution. Unless the project get enormous, I favor keeping everything together. But I have seen solutions with 20 projects in them, and sometime I favor breaking them out into separate solutions. @trasa: I like simplicity as well. But how much more complicated is a adding a folder vs adding another project? Plus, that does lead into one of my OCD tendencies: I like me namespaces to match up correctly. ReSharper helps with that, but now I have to open each file and change the namespace for the new location. I know, because I just had to do this. @Milton: I keep them all in one solution. Unless the project get enormous, I favor keeping everything together. But I have seen solutions with 20 projects in them, and sometime I favor breaking them out into separate solutions.

@trasa: I like simplicity as well. But how much more complicated is a adding a folder vs adding another project?
Plus, that does lead into one of my OCD tendencies: I like me namespaces to match up correctly. ReSharper helps with that, but now I have to open each file and change the namespace for the new location. I know, because I just had to do this.

]]> By: milton arcos http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32301 milton arcos Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:12:10 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32301 So you keep all these projects in different solutions or in one soultion? Do you recommend against placing all the projects in one solution? So you keep all these projects in different solutions or in one soultion? Do you recommend against placing all the projects in one solution?

]]> By: trasa http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32218 trasa Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:22:00 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32218 @Chris & Bill: I prefer to start simple, with the same separation via namespaces but in as few assemblies as I can get away with, typically Web, Core, and Test. If the project grows to the point that I need more separation, then I can split the assembly up later - otherwise, YAGNI. The "Default" architecture should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. @Chris & Bill: I prefer to start simple, with the same separation via namespaces but in as few assemblies as I can get away with, typically Web, Core, and Test. If the project grows to the point that I need more separation, then I can split the assembly up later – otherwise, YAGNI.

The “Default” architecture should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

]]> By: Chris Brandsma http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32197 Chris Brandsma Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:11:24 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32197 @Bill, I'm with you for smaller projects. In those cases I break things up with folders. It is just important that you have some separation of your layers. I have had trouble when working on larger projects in group situations. Trying to keep things separate, but in the same project, can be problematic. But I do like the idea of putting the interfaces in with the domain objects. @Bill, I’m with you for smaller projects. In those cases I break things up with folders. It is just important that you have some separation of your layers.

I have had trouble when working on larger projects in group situations. Trying to keep things separate, but in the same project, can be problematic.

But I do like the idea of putting the interfaces in with the domain objects.

]]> By: Chris Brandsma http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-32195 Chris Brandsma Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:05:14 +0000 http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/11/my-default-aspnet-architecture/#comment-32195 @Markus, Intriguing comment. Care to share what your code would look like so we can have something to discuss? @Markus, Intriguing comment. Care to share what your code would look like so we can have something to discuss?

]]>