Greg Reinacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
Oops, somehow hit send accidentally, and half my message disappeared at
the same time. Gotta learn how to work this keyboard
f their
>>choosing), but that could be taken care of by the client making some
>>sort of hash out of the method signature and the server validating the
>>hash with the actual method requested.
>>
>>So far this has worked out fabulously for us.
>>
>
hash with the actual method requested.
>
>So far this has worked out fabulously for us.
>
>--b
>
>Bryan Batchelder
>eBusiness Consultant
>ConnectWise, Inc.
>813-935-7100 x 425
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Gambs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
What you describe below is basically how Digest authentication works. The
server generates a nonce (think of this as a token), and returns it to the
client. The client then sends the username, and a hashed version of the
nonce and password (and a few other details). The nonce can be a once-
onl
sday, May 23, 2002 3:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
>
>
> There are lots of ways to accomplish this; which one is best
> depends on your precise scenario and things like how
> important it is to avoid vulne
ound trips.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Reinacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
Well, it depends on how your users "log in" to your application today.
What exactly happ
:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
"you _do_ require them to authenticate, right?"
Actually, shamefully to admit, no. I am unfamiliar with authentication
methods other then the basic application login where I store a hashed PW
Well, it depends on how your users "log in" to your application today.
What exactly happens when a user logs in? Do you make a web service call
to validate their credentials? Or is it some other mechanism?
In the end, however, each call to a web service needs to be authenticated
in one way or a
> I don't think it's a weak argument at all. By combining data,
> you run the risk that a bug in your code could reveal their
> data to a competitor. At least with database isolation, that
> becomes far less likely.
Hmm. I guess this is one of those situations where it comes down to what
you thin
of data being sent over port 80. Not SSL needed and large
files sent from Client machine to server gets compressed.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Reinacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architect
franklin gray wrote:
> "Honestly, I think clients concerns about you being in the same DB as
> other companies' is weak at best."
> I agree, but my boss doesn't. He says that companies will not use our
> product if their data is shared with others in a DB. I can't argue that
> because I don't kn
: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
One more thing to keep in mind about this is it might take .006 seconds
to open/close a single connection at a time, and that might be "fast
enough" for your application.
sent from Client
machine to server gets compressed.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Reinacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
This is a bit OT, but you say
"we were
"The critical question here is - what does "hosting" mean in this context? Is there a
specific application?"
In this case, instead of the customer purchasing the software and installing the
clients and the backend, we lease them the software and the backend is here (Web
Services and all) and t
"You're going to let the *clients* tell you who they are?"
The client app, not the clients and yes they have to login.
"In any case, you can only pool connections that have exactly the same
server, username, password, etc., so if you split across multiple
databases, your pooling will necessari
One more thing to keep in mind about this is it might take .006 seconds
to open/close a single connection at a time, and that might be "fast
enough" for your application. But since this entails a network load and
a database server load, it's likely that if you try to open, say, 100
connections al
This is a bit OT, but you say
"we were going to have everybody pass in what company they belonged to
and we would know what server and DB to use for that user."
If I were you, I'd force the user to authenticate, and then decide for
yourself what company he belongs to. Don't give him the opportu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
> The design we are taking is that when we start hosting, we
> have to keep different clients data in different databases,
> at least that's what my boss says because the clients
> wouldn't go for their
> The design we are taking is that when we start hosting, we
> have to keep different clients data in different databases,
> at least that's what my boss says because the clients
> wouldn't go for their data sharing a DB with another company.
> Of course, we can't put to many companies data on on
From: franklin gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wed 22/05/2002 14:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
I have a questions about connection pooling.
"from the time you open it in your init code all the way until the last person is done
using it."
What I do is open it just before I use it, then when I am done using it, I dispose of
it. All in the same method. How can this be multi persons?
Example:
Create Connection object
open connection
--- franklin gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For connection pooling to work, doesn't the objects that create the connection be
>working in a
> Com+ environment?
In the ADO model connection pooling was implemented by a resource dispenser in the
driver. So it
was in no way dependent on COM+.
I
"If you're talking about scaling to 50 users, probably not a big deal.
But maybe. If 5000, you definitely want to take a really hard look at
your design, and above all else: read "Transactional COM+" by Tim Ewald."
The design we are taking is that when we start hosting, we have to keep different
eginTransaction
on the Connection Object, although you will have to control everything.
- Original Message -
From: "franklin gray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A M
>
> I have a questions about connection pooling.
>
> For connection pooling to work, doesn't the objects that
> create the connection be working in a Com+ environment?
No. Connection pooling is built into several different technologies.
COM+ is just one of those. The System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConn
I have a questions about connection pooling.
For connection pooling to work, doesn't the objects that create the connection be
working in a Com+ environment?
With my current setup, I have Web Services as the backend of my app so that I can go
through firewalls. My web services create object
> Craig, I agree with everything you stated.
>
> What if I change one of your assumptions - and it only took
> .006 seconds to open (and close) a database connection.
> Would that change your architecture?
Interesting. First of all, 0.006 seconds is still pretty damn slow.
Think of it in terms of
OTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
> Allow me to interject this opinion:
>
> The mid-tier is not about business logic. It is about scalability.
>
> I think it's a commo
sable
> system."
>
> It's like I said, we are evolving in circles. It's a fact,
> that's no problem with that as long as we all can learn from
> our own mistakes. I certainly try to.
>
> On your other notes, I'm still reading, and thinking, and
> thinkin
--Original Message-
From: Peter Foreman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: quinta-feira, 16 de Maio de 2002 16:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
Inline:
--- Rui Dias Quintino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Team A develops some SuperTra
, May 15, 2002 3:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
> I don't think spanning a transaction across multiple method
> calls on the business tier is a problem as long as all those
> alls are wrapped in a single call to the busi
Inline:
--- Rui Dias Quintino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Team A develops some SuperTransactional method, using ADO.Net and SQL
> transactions, no COM+/DTC overhead. Team A is not aware if this method will
> or will not be used by other classes/methods developed by Team B,C,E (in
> Enterpri
Inline:
--- Craig Andera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is really one of the best lists for .Net, thanks
> > everyone for all the usefull tips I've been reading the last
> > few days. But I've a question about this one. If we don't
> > need distributed transactions, even if you have just one
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
> This is really one of the best lists for .Net, thanks
> everyone for all the usefull tips I've been reading the last
> few days. But I've a question abo
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: quarta-feira, 15 de Maio de 2002 13:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re 1: you also can NOT assume you will not at any point in the future
> HAVE to coor
: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
1) It depends what your component does. I don't think you can assume
that most components will
need to run in a transaction with anything else.
2) If COM+ is the solution for generic components - what will you do
when requiring transaction
; Regards
>
> Thomas Tomiczek
> THONA Consulting Ltd.
> (Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Csaba Gero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Dienstag, 14. Mai 2002 10:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting
--- Csaba Gero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO the point is, if you are creating a "generic" component (whatever
> this may mean :)), you cannot know the environment in which it may run
> later and if it will have to run it in the same transaction with some
> other components or not. In this case
: Dienstag, 14. Mai 2002 10:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
IMO the point is, if you are creating a "generic" component (whatever
this may mean :)), you cannot know the environment in which it may run
later and if it will have to run
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I make a component that MIGHT be used in a transaction with others
> (which, btw,, imho is more or less a requirement if you make "building
> blocks"), then it IS COM+ :-)
I'd wholeheartedly agree that that would be the best route in that cas
IMO the point is, if you are creating a "generic" component (whatever
this may mean :)), you cannot know the environment in which it may run
later and if it will have to run it in the same transaction with some
other components or not. In this case you currently have no other choice
than to go wit
Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, if you "can have a layer of transactional components without COM+"
-
> what d you use as DTC?
Firstly, if you have multiple RMs then I'd go with COM+/DTC.
However, th
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *** Resources. Like in Just In Tame Activation, like in Resource
> Managers - I was talking of omputer resources.
Given the memory overhead of a context
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *** Resources. Like in Just In Tame Activation, like in Resource
> Managers - I was talking of omputer resources.
Given the memory overhead of a context in COM+, JITA is only worthwhile for objects
that take up
quite a bit of memory in terms of da
Inlinw with ***
Regards
Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Foreman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Montag, 13. Mai 2002 11:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier
--- Thomas
--- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (a) Transaction support and propagation.
In a multiple resource manager/DTC case - agreed. But in the simple case of a single
RM it's
probably not worth the overhead of DTC compared to hand coding the transaction start
and end
points, especially
> Inline :-) And do yourself a favor and get some serious consulting.
+1. I would go so far as to say that your chances of failure exceed 50%
if you plan to have this done in the next two years *unless* you get
some serious help. And not a body shop like whatever Anderson is calling
itself these
You might want to take a looke at the book, .NET e-Business Architecture
(ISBN: 0672322196). It has an end-to-end sample e-commerce application
included with it. The book is a text on n-tier architectures using .NET.
Steve Miller
You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscr
--- Jerry Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our company is a ecommerce company. We currently have no middle tier. We
> are looking into moving most all of our business logic into a middle tier.
> The middle tier will need to communicate with both our internet and our
> intranet (which consists
Our company is a ecommerce company. We currently have no middle tier. We
are looking into moving most all of our business logic into a middle tier.
The middle tier will need to communicate with both our internet and our
intranet (which consists of a 300 person call center and more ). We were
pl
50 matches
Mail list logo
