|
|
I'm working with a suite of tools, all sharing a common framework. I tend to split things up into assemblies based on their general use... One assembly for market data interfaces, one for product valuation, one for my data access layer, etc.
The advantage is that different projects only pull in the assemblies they need, so when I'm making a change, it's easier to see the potential downstream effects. If I'm modifying my "Base" assembly (Pretty much the hub of the entire framework), I know to be a LOT more careful not to make any breaking changes. If I'm working on an assembly that's only used by one non-critical application, I can save time and play it a bit looser (RAD environment, so patches can be released in minutes instead of days).
Technically I could do the same thing with namespaces, but it's a lot easier to look at DLL references than to scan an entire project to see which namespaces it touches.
Also, as a side benefit, I make heavy use of 'internal' classes. While various parts of an assembly might interact which each other, I maintain careful control of which parts are actually public. That way I can look at each assembly as black box, and minimize the danger of breaking other parts of the system.
TL;DR;: I use assemblies as another level of encapsulation, to minimize regression issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a very good reason... If you put classes all inside a project, how do you replace just one class?
Put "replaceable" code into their own projects and you get a separate DLL that you can swap out on the fly.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
What prevent you to replace the big DLL as well with a new version of it where just one class changed?
Your "use case" need.... some elaboration...
|
|
|
|
|
My product uses separate assemblies for a couple purposes. First are tools and utilities used commonly between the three applications in the product.
The second is a little more interesting, in that I use separate assemblies and reflection for a plug-in framework. I have the option of customizing the product by replacing a plug-in assembly if I wish. To some extent this helps me tailor the product at run-time rather than at compile time.
I could do all of this without using separate assemblies. Having purpose-specific assemblies gives you a level of organization above that of source file. While I've seen plenty of code that could benefit from more organization, I've seen very little where the organization was overdone.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
it's a matter of taste..
I noticed many webby people (at least in my previous company, maybe it's a culture thing, hence different in each company) they were the kind who would would create zillion of library with just 2 or 3 classes each.
They called it "separation of concerns" you see?
I am just glad none of them designed the .NET BCL!!!  
As a side note, my preference, I usually put everything with the same dependencies in the same assembly.
I.e. ALL general purpose utilities in one DLL
All utility related to a UI framework (WPF, WebMVC, Xamarin) in another DLL
All reusable business data & model in one assembly
finally all views, viewmodel related to an app in the app itself
|
|
|
|
|
Because "utility methods or object extensions living in assemblies that could be added as a reference and that could be used throughout other solutions" should be the vast majority of your code.
Your data layer should be in a separate assembly because you'll be using it in the public facing website and on your intranet admin tool.
Your business logic should be in a separate assembly, because you'll be using it on the website, the desktop app, the command-line tool, and the mobile app.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
Reusability. You can reuse the assemblies in another program without having to import all that code. Better yet, you can easily reuse only part of the code, picking and choosing which assemblies you need.
Had to do exactly the above recently. We were able to leave out the parts of the code that required Windows UI libraries that don't exist on Linux yet through judicious choice of assemblies.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-platform considerations are few and far between. I haven't had to write "cross-platform" code since 1989 using C++, and even then, we abandoned the effort after one application, even though (I thought) it turned out well.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I used to be of the camp to have many projects in a solution, thinking of allowing for maximum re-usability of ALL the components, including the following:
- Entity Types
- Repository Types
- Business Logic Types
- Data Transfer Object Types
- Web Application(s)
- Desktop Application(s)
Nowadays I structure my solution based on my designed deployment model. I try to work towards minimizing the number of projects, and currently my model is like the following:
- Desktop Application Project
- Desktop Application Installer Project
- Web Application Project
- Web Application Installer Project
- Business Logic Public Contracts Project
- Business Logic Platform Project(s)
For the business logic public contracts library, this project would contain as much business logic as I can stuff in a platform agnostic manner (in a portable class library, for example). Typically DTOs are placed here, alongside public types that contain re-usable business logic.
The platform-specific projects utilize the public contracts project. These kinds of projects will actually contain the database types, and will translate the DTOs to the underlying platform-specific data types.
|
|
|
|
|
Namespaces relates to the logical organisation of the code.
Assemblies relates to deployment, and can be governed by things like a plugin architecture, need for patch updates, versioning, reuse between different applications etc.
That's two different things, just like in UML where you can have both a logical view and a deployment view.
|
|
|
|
|
At some point, the set of folders or namespaces cries out (to me) for its own DLL ... as when I'm dealing with unique hardware devices or third-party APIs.
One also cannot have circular references with DLLs ... helps with keeping your "subject libraries" pure(r).
(Finally, limits my ability to blow my foot off with a hasty "project-wide" code change).
|
|
|
|
|
I come at this issue from an SCM viewpoint and while I think there are valid arguments to both separation and collapse, I tend to see many development efforts where the separation was based on how easy Visual Studio makes it. If the developers have discipline, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if not, you can quickly get spaghetti code.
I personally believe that all other things being equal, fewer artifacts is better. There are circumstances where they should split, but I default to not creating an extra assembly.
I'd recommend reading the 'White Book' Partitioning code base through .NET assemblies and Visual Studio projects found here:
NDepend White Books[^]
K.
|
|
|
|
|
The only point of multiple assemblies is if you want to use a part or parts of the projects in another environments. That is using shared libraries the way they've been used for decades now. Another reason would be if you want to run that stuff in a scalable cluster. One assembly does X, mutliple copies of the other assembly do Y and they communicate via some sort of IPC or network.
Outside of creating libraries because I actually need a library and outside of clusters, I always go with folders & namespaces. Because there's no reason to break up a single-responsibility project into multiple binaries. It only makes deployment more complex (albeit not much more) without any benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
This is likely a repost, but, eh, I don't care. A friend sent this to me, and I thought you lot might enjoy it.
The Night Watch[^]
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
" nobody is going to invent French if they're constantly being attacked by bears" 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Last night, we started a week long kid's program called "Ocean Commotion".
All of the leaders/adults are supposed to have 'ocean' related names.
My co-workers are: Sally Seaweed, etc.
I chose Sid Fishes... only a select group get it.
modified 14-Jun-16 8:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
We're doing that too at our VBS!
...and I get it Vicious.
|
|
|
|
|
Very good!
Anne.R.Kay (in the UK)
modified 14-Jun-16 8:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
In our lovely Waldorf-ee community, we get all sorts of amusing names. For example, A Mrs. Blue gave her daughter the first name of Sky.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
A company I worked for employed a young man called Richard Head (what were his parents thinking?). And another one had a young lady called Annette Curtain. There was also a lady called Ann Winters, we speculated that she sold lingerie to Eskimos.
|
|
|
|
|
I know a Richard Head.
And also a James James. Think his parents had more of a screw loose.
|
|
|
|
|
A former co-worker was "Bambi Deere"
A friend's name is "Ken Doll" (he's older than the Mattel usage)
And I once met "Vinnie Barbarino" who had the name first (From "Welcome Back, Kotter"[^])
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
I once met a "Rocky Mountain"
And a heard of a woman who married into the name "Alison Allison"
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
I know a Chris Cross, she married into it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
