Re: What am I missing?

Well I dont think so really. You could argue that if you only provide a data
layer and that in asp.net you already have the other two layers in the form
and its code behind that you have a sort of 2.5 layer anyway.

I personally think it depends how complex your middle layer is likely to be.
For example, if you were dealing with a business which had hundreds or
protocols regarding how it did business then a business layer is definately
worth doing but if we are only talking about a few then why bother one could
argue.

The purists will advocate multi teir and will even argue that the tiered
must be firewalled using web services to prevent such terrible erroneous
measures being carried out but errant developers. But thats a purist for
you. The advantage of taking such and approach is that you then have a
structured way to ewvolve your middle layer.

For me, its horses for courses, if it looks like I need to handle a complex
situation, then I'd better have a very formal method of doing so, if its
simple, why complicate it. And if its simple, abut has been designed in a
complex way, then is it easuer to add to the existing complexity or should I
simplify it, and in doing so where is the business case for it. ?

HTH



"BJ" <julie6232000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1190514914.221733.285490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 22, 2:19 am, "Just Me" <news.microsoft.com> wrote:
Well, your email is very detailed and paradoxically without much detail.
I
do subscribe to the three tier club because it does provide a level of
logical seperation between data access and business logic. Sometimes
though
there isnt much in the way of business logic and you end up writing the
tier
just because you think you should.

I dont know BizTalk, but in truth you dont really hear much about it
anyway.
I agree with you about web services as being typically slow. I only tend
to
use them if I dont have an alternative for internal design.

Im sure someone will shoot me down for my opinion, but there it is, warts
and all !

;-D

"BJ" <julie6232...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1190451984.621245.170400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



I just started this week on a new project. The existing project uses
BEA Tuxedo as a second layer service broker. The clients make calls
to the Tux services which in turn retrieves data from an Oracle DB.

My job is to support the current application and possibly upgrade teh
client app to .Net. I have a few options:

I can rewrite the client desktop application .in Dot Net (FW3.0)
utilizing the same Tux calls or
Write a new desktop application using straight calls to the DB (make
it a two tier app)
Write a new ASP.Net application using straight calls to the DB
Write either a new Win form app or ASP.Net app utilizing WCF services
as a middle tier
Write a new front end (win form or web form) using BizTalk as a
replacement to Tux

Here are my questions:

Assuming the new application is stand alone, why would I need BizTalk?
If the system isn't stand alone, I could still make calls to the Tux
services, so again would I need BizTalk?
What advantages does do I gain if I do use BizTalk over just WCF?
In the pass all of my calls to Web services were slow; wouldn't my app
gain processing performance with less dependency on services (2 tier
vs 3 tier)?
Again what am I gaining with a 3 tier over a 2 tier?
Is there another solution I'm not seeing?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've had some time to rethink what it is I'm trying to convey. My
question comes down to the architecture of a new application. Do I
really need a middle tier solution? For the purposes of replacing the
just existing application, I can build an ASP.Net site using ASP.AJAX,
JavaScript, and HTML on the Client side; the FileNet APIs, WCF and
ADO.Net on the Server-side. My short circuit is this solution seems
too easy. It also appears that by cutting out the middle tier, I will
gain performance. I'm wondering if there's some major architectural
black hole I'm missing here? Load balancing maybe? I don't know



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Am i thinking correctly?? business objects inserting to database
    ... We are building the new application using a 3 tier ... What I generally do is create a class for each business object. ... classes themselves know nothing of the database. ... Next I create Data Access layer that knows how to take a Value object ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: How to distingusih Business Layer and Data Access Layer requirements
    ... If you want a very simple explanation, your business tier handles the ... proffecional and easy to do this with bussines objects. ... How can i decide that what things go into business layer and what ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Definition of "N-Tier"
    ... too many acronymns and catch-phrases in this business. ... business logic gets conceptually put in a "business tier" that all ... of a data tier -- a back end database or a local database engine accessing ... and put it in a 3rd, business tier or layer. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: 3-tier layers
    ... becomes a presentation layer? ... the business logic in it, but it does not have a presentation until I create ... Data Tier is also a set of classes. ... a COM object, a WEB service? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Exposing Business Layer Objects to Presentation Layer
    ... > I'm in the process of designing the presentation layer of my web-based ... Why exposing business objects to the ... So all the convenient OTS layer interface infrastructures (e.g., ... to the relevant objects that implement the subsystem. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
Quantcast