Re: 2 tier vs 3 tier

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) (mike_at_epprecht.net)
Date: 12/20/04

  • Next message: Vern Rabe: "RE: Sql order by question" 
    Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:38:19 +0100

    Hi

    Sometimes Microsoft does not put out the best examples. For samples, basic
    applications are done as 2 tier as the added complexity of 3 tier just
    confuses the person trying to understand the feature that is being
    explained. That is why most MS samples do not have any error/exception
    handling.

    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:#L4$kIW5EHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > 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: Vern Rabe: "RE: Sql order by question"