Hmm.<\/FONT><\/P> Always for the sake of clarity, I believe that some I think that the key concept here is that the design Regarding the embedding of business logic in the web I’m afraid that, more than the articles that for sake Sorry if my bad English messed up the meaning \ud83d\ude42<\/P> I saw <\/EM> Julie’s post<\/EM> <\/A> that took me to <\/EM> Alex’s post<\/EM> <\/A> and I really like this I The I just That Hmm. Always for the sake of clarity, I believe that some more words should be spent on in which sense WSs “are another layer in a multi-layer architecture”… They introduce some kind of factorization of the enterprise ecosistem, sure: however I’d say that their taxonomy is somewhat orthogonal to the tier one. They…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-architecture-ws"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=801"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1950,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions\/1950"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cloudidentity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nmore words should be spent on in which sense WSs “are another layer in a
\nmulti-layer architecture”… They introduce some kind of factorization of the
\nenterprise ecosistem, sure: however I’d say that their taxonomy is somewhat
\northogonal to the tier one. They are deeply different in purpose: just think at
\nall the orchestration patterns that WS leverages as opposed to the rigid roles
\nthat carachterize the PLBLDAL.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nof a business object is supposed to be done exactly like in the past: having WSs
\ntoday allow you to gather a functional team of objects(components?) that,
\ntaken together, supply (guess what?) a service<\/U>. Such objects can be from
\nboth the BL and the DAL, hence the orthogonality. <\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nservice: since the WS supply a different coarseness in the offered functionality
\nand can have to coordinate the interaction of different lower level objects, I
\nbelieve it’s perfectly reasonable that such coordination could imply a centain
\ndose of (business) logic. It’s not wasted by any mean: by scale selfsimilarity,
\nthis could be equivalent to say that the orchestration logic among WSs of one
\nenterprise process is “wasted” as well.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nof simplicity fail to supply a canonical concept of service, the problem is that
\nit’s not entirely clear what a service architecture overimposed on a old fashion
\none can do for the enterprise: we have the mean before having an exact
\nidea of what what we can achieve with that mean. Such goals are, very
\noften, more business related than pure technical stuff: so the typical
\nsituation is that who has the skin in the game can’t yet think in term of
\nservices and since he can’t think in such term he can’t as well see the
\n(enormous) advantages specific to his business.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\n
\nsubject. However, I don’t totally agree.<\/EM><\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\ndefinitely agree that WebServices are another layer in a multi-layer
\narchitecture. What I don’t totally agree with is that there should be no
\nlogic in a WebService. That it should only act as an “interface”
\nlayer. I think in a perfect world, where everybody follows best practices
\nand has all the time they need to do projects, this would be the way to
\ngo. A lot of companies have to weigh “the best way to do something” vs.
\n“the fastest and most cost effective way to do something”. A lot, I would
\nguess, decide that if the business logic is small enough and will never be
\nreused, that it would be better to just throw it in the WebService. The
\nmore OOP-like you make an application, the easier it is to update in the
\nfuture. It also goes the other way though, and can make updating more
\ntedious.<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nlast project I worked on (that’s not quite done yet actually) had about 1500
\nlines of code in it. Basically though, all the logic in the WebService is
\nreally just to “shape” the data that comes from my DAL. Should I move all
\nthat shaping code into another Assembly or even just another class?
\nMaybe. If I don’t, am I screwing myself over in the future? Not
\nreally.<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nthink that there’s no difference in programming practice between say WebForms,
\nWebServices & WindowsForms (besides the fact that WebServices don’t have
\nUI). It’s a “best practice” to not have any business logic in your UI (or
\nin your WebService, stated by Alex), but does everyone follow that? Not at
\nall. Again, I believe the reason being, simply because of time and
\nweighing the benefits.<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/P>
\n
\nsaid, I agree with Alex, that business logic should be outside of your “layer
\ninterface”. I don’t think, however, that if you don’t do it that way, you
\nshould be looked at as someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.
\nSituations vary.<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/P>[HumanCompiler<\/a>]<\/p>\n