Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier
From: Murphy (murphy_at_nospam.com)
Date: 12/19/04
- Next message: Matthew Wells: "Re: Iterate through the inserted table in an update trigger..."
- Previous message: --CELKO--: "Re: Self-join question"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Next in thread: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Reply: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:30:21 +1100
Mike,
Thanks and I fully understand exactly what you mean, the reason I asked the
question is because of the following item I read on the MS website that has
goten me confused.
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/faq/default.aspx#vwd
You seem to be encouraging folks to do data in a two-tier way (embedded SQL
within your page). I want a nice 3-tier databinding model.
We have a rich databinding model in Visual Studio 2005 and ASP.NET 2.0 - one
that supports binding ASP.NET controls against a variety of different data
sources. One of these data-sources is the "<asp:objectdatasource>" control,
which is specifically designed to enable you to bind against middle tier
object layers, enabling true n-tier databinding using ASP.NET 2.0 controls.
Does this advocate 2 or 3 tier ? and if 2 how does this reconcile with the
points you raised below ?
Thanks
Murphy
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eQx7AXN5EHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Security and abstraction. Forget about changing the DB engine as that is a
> massive engineering project.
>
> Do you want a web server to talk (directly though a firewall) to your all
> important data?
> With 2-tier, all your data access logic sits on the web server and you end
> up putting most of your business logic in the DB.
> Easy to develop, but terrible to run as once your overload your back-end,
to
> get better performance, you need to spend massive amount of money of big
> hardware.
>
> 3-tier was developed so that you can re-use your business logic,
validation
> and access routines across various display technologies. If only
> presentation specific logic is on the front end, it means that you can
> change the front end with no problem as your logic behind it stays the
same.
> Think WinForms, WebServices and WebSites here. In future, stuff like
mobile
> devices will be more popular, but you can't show the same form as on a web
> site as the device won't display it well, due to the size limitations. You
> want to write twice the same business logic and data access code because
you
> have to support 2 presentation formats?
>
> Regards
> --------------------------------
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
>
> IM: mike@epprecht.net
>
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Murphy" <murphy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u#3D7DM5EHA.3644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I am currently in the early stages of developing my 1st web app and have
> > noticed some discussion about the advantages of a 2 tier approach as
> opposed
> > to 3 tier.
> >
> > I see an obvious advantage of 2 tier being that one could change db
engine
> > with minimal fuss however you forfeit the advantages of stored
procedures
> > etc.
> >
> > Comments ?
> >
> > Murphy
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Matthew Wells: "Re: Iterate through the inserted table in an update trigger..."
- Previous message: --CELKO--: "Re: Self-join question"
- In reply to: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Next in thread: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Reply: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\): "Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
