Most Flexible UI Architecture?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by pbd22, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. pbd22

    pbd22 Guest

    Hi.

    I am in the process of designing a Web site and would like
    advice on the best (most flexible) design for the client
    interface. What I am primarily interested in is how to
    architect the UI so changes can be made with ""very little""
    effort moving forward and major redesigns are avoided.
    What is the current best practice?

    Also, how much advantage/disadvantage is involved when
    pumping the client UI (html, etc) via ajax on page load?

    Thanks in advance.
    pbd22, Jun 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pbd22 <> wrote in news:a3f502d0-a8f4-445e-a0eb-
    :

    > Hi.
    >
    > I am in the process of designing a Web site and would like
    > advice on the best (most flexible) design for the client
    > interface. What I am primarily interested in is how to
    > architect the UI so changes can be made with ""very little""
    > effort moving forward and major redesigns are avoided.
    > What is the current best practice?
    >
    > Also, how much advantage/disadvantage is involved when
    > pumping the client UI (html, etc) via ajax on page load?
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >


    The most flexible is to move the application code into libraries and use
    the user interface as a faceplpate for user entry. If you go this
    direction, you can fairly easily go from ASP.NET to add AJAX to ASP.NET
    MVC, etc.

    As for AJAX, the pumping with AJAX is a bit overrated in my opinion, but it
    does give you one common way of getting the data. I find jQuery a bit
    easier to use and it can load a bit more dynamically.

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

    Twitter: @gbworld
    Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

    ******************************************
    | Think outside the box! |
    ******************************************
    Gregory A. Beamer, Jun 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pbd22

    pbd22 Guest

    On Jun 11, 8:42 pm, "Gregory A. Beamer"
    <> wrote:
    > pbd22 <> wrote in news:a3f502d0-a8f4-445e-a0eb-
    > :
    >
    > > Hi.

    >
    > > I am in the process of designing a Web site and would like
    > > advice on the best (most flexible) design for the client
    > > interface. What I am primarily interested in is how to
    > > architect the UI so changes can be made with ""very little""
    > > effort moving forward and major redesigns are avoided.
    > > What is the current best practice?

    >
    > > Also, how much advantage/disadvantage is involved when
    > > pumping the client UI (html, etc) via ajax on page load?

    >
    > > Thanks in advance.

    >
    > The most flexible is to move the application code into libraries and use
    > the user interface as a faceplpate for user entry. If you go this
    > direction, you can fairly easily go from ASP.NET to add AJAX to ASP.NET
    > MVC, etc.
    >
    > As for AJAX, the pumping with AJAX is a bit overrated in my opinion, but it
    > does give you one common way of getting the data. I find jQuery a bit
    > easier to use and it can load a bit more dynamically.
    >
    > --
    > Gregory A. Beamer
    > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    >
    > Twitter: @gbworld
    > Blog:http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com
    >
    > ******************************************
    > |     Think outside the box!             |
    > ******************************************


    Hi Gregory,

    Thanks for the response.

    I have been using DLLs in my project, but entirely for server-side
    stuff.
    Now that I am thinking hard about UI design, I am wondering how to
    design
    it so removing a widget here or there does not require a major
    redesign down
    the road. I am ashamed to admit that, in the past, the way I designed
    the client interface was simply writing the HTML on the aspx page. So,
    the
    HTML is basically hard coded and, when data is needed, I used a server
    tag (or ajax) to get it. This approach is messy because, what if I
    want to change some UI items? Its all hard-coded.

    I am assuming by your DLL suggestion you r saying that the DLL should
    be
    scripting all of the HTML from the server? When you do this, do you
    script "all"
    of the page's HTML from the server? Is this normal? I can see how this
    would be easier as an update to a DLL isn't all that involved.

    Thanks again.
    pbd22, Jun 12, 2009
    #3
  4. pbd22 <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > I am assuming by your DLL suggestion you r saying that the DLL should
    > be
    > scripting all of the HTML from the server? When you do this, do you
    > script "all"
    > of the page's HTML from the server? Is this normal? I can see how this
    > would be easier as an update to a DLL isn't all that involved.
    >
    > Thanks again.
    >



    here is how I design things, to add some clarity.

    1. Set up tests for the functionality (generally from use cases)
    2. Create the functionality in libraries.
    3. Test

    you can swap steps 1 & 2 if you are using a test after approach rather
    than test driven. It is easier with VS 2008 Pro (or greater) or VS 2005
    Team (Architect, Developer, Test or Suite) as ther eis no proper TDD
    approach in either of these ("fixed" in VS 2010). You can also use
    another framework (nUnit, for example) for the TDD approach in VS 2008
    or earlier, if you want to have your tests drive designs.

    Once test, I add the UI page. It's sole responsibilities are displaying
    data for the user and allowing the user to change data and submit back.
    The libraries actually do the hard work.

    This is an approach Microsoft has advocated for years but,
    unfortunately, has not demonstrated very well outside the architecture
    group (patterns & practices, et al).

    If the logic changes, or I find a bug, I can alter existing changes or
    add a new test (depending on change type) with very little impact on the
    UI, if any.

    One huge benefit is when the client says "can we make this a Silverlight
    app", I do not have to rewrite the application, only the UI bits.

    Hope this helps!


    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

    Twitter: @gbworld
    Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

    *******************************************
    | Think outside the box! |
    *******************************************
    Gregory A. Beamer, Jun 15, 2009
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Muhammad Khan
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,222
    Mike Treseler
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. H.MuthuKumaraRajan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    438
    H.MuthuKumaraRajan
    Feb 4, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    506
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
  4. rashmi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    Grumble
    Jul 5, 2005
  5. xkenneth
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    336
    Bruno Desthuilliers
    Feb 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page