This is . Net Applicable
Small ScaleOf B/S Application.
Many applications I have compiled are based on this architecture, and my core starting point is
Development efficiency first.
I.Database: Sql2005express
It is easy to deploy,CopyIn the past.
Of course, if you want to integrate with the original system data, you can only see what the original data is.DB.
2 . persistence layer : Castle activerecord
is easy to use and greatly improves development efficiency.
however, there are some major shortcomings:
[ 1 ] activerecord the persistence logic and business logic are mixed, ugly.
[ 2 ] performance.
[ 3 ] SQL statements are transparent, fine-grained control is not feasible.
[ 1 ], [ 2 ] Small-scale applications are not considered, if there is a problem in [ 3 , consider ibatis.net
BTW: Thank you terrylee Castle Article , I have learned a lot from this. For more information and evaluation on ar , read terrylee related articles:
( http://terrylee.cnblogs.com/archive/2006/04/28/387503.html )
3 . business layer : none, alternatively, use the transaction script mode
If the business layer is really thin (only some crud operation ), then you can call the persistence layer directly in action of the page. There is no need to package the layer again.
otherwise, you can use the transaction script mode (another ugly thing, op product ), for more information about transaction script modes, see Fowler . poeaa :
( http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/index.html )
Thu.Presentation Layer: Asp.netCooperationMagicajax.net
There is nothing to say about the performance layer. It is used more.ASP. net2.0And those new features.
For usageMagicajax.netIt is easy to use (the version is only available now0.3, A little scared ~~), I still encountered many small problems. My solution is: No needAjaxNow,-_____-Haha.
This is basically the case with regard to the architecture of small-scale applications. I hope to give some reference to my friends who develop similar applications. There must be many improper or incorrect ones. please let us know.