Skip to main content

Considerations for Multi-Client Applications

Often when dealing with applications/systems that serve multiple clients, we encounter a situation where

  • Clients share some core functionality and algorithms
  • Clients have custom logic that extends the core functionality
  • Clients have customized data structures that extend core data structures
The key to making this work in a maintainable way (that is, without infusing the code with crazy branching statements or writing the whole application in dynamic SQL) is maintaining a distinct separation between core and client.

Here I present components from a simple, hypothetical application that demonstrates such a separation. The application is meant to evaluate whether or not a client should acquire a player for fantasy football. It contains some core functionality for doing the evaluation (it doesn't pick up a player who has never scored a point) and a core data structure that represents a player. There are two clients who extend this core functionality: me and a stupid opponent in my league. The stupid opponent is a Bears fan who only picks up Bears players. I am a player who uses some trivial evaluation strategy and also extends the core data structure with some data that represents my own opinion.

The code shows an example of how to define and extend core functionality. It does not show how to wire everything together (dependency injection) or how to persist custom data. I may explore these topics in future posts. Also note that I called the code repository 'MultiTenancy', but this is more likely something you'll find in multi-instance scenario. I'm using the term 'multi-client' to represent both possibilities.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who I'm Is

I am a junior .NET developer currently working in Chicago, IL. I am starting this blog in order to enhance my knowledge of programming subject matter. Hopefully, someone else will be helped along the way. This first post will probably be edited soon...

Stubbing Static Methods with PostSharp

TypeMock uses the Profiler API to allow mocking, stubbing, etc. of classes used by code under test. It has the ability to handle sealed classes, static classes, non-virtual methods, and other troublesome-yet-oft-encountered scenarios in the world of unit testing. Other frameworks rely on proxies to intercept method calls, limiting them to be able to only fake virtual, abstract, and interface members. They also rely on dependecy injection to place the proxies as the concrete implementation of calls to the abstracted interface members. Anyone working with a legacy codebase is bound to run into static method calls (especially in the data access layer), dependencies on concrete types with non-virtual methods, and sealed class dependencies (HttpContext anyone?). The only way to unit test this without refactoring is with TypeMock. I've never used TypeMock, and I'm sure it's a great product, but it's not free. I decided to spike some code to see if I could solve the prob...

Strongly-Typed Property Constraints in Rhino Mocks

UPDATE: As I suspected, this functionality was right in front of my face – it’s called PredicateConstraint in Rhino Mocks. I also realize that I managed to completely ignore the existence of Predicate<T> in the framework, and write my own predicate delegate. Hey, I was on a roll. Rhino Mocks has a PropertyConstraint class that allows you to check the values on properties of objects passed into the method as part of the verification for that method being called. Unfortunately, the name of the property is specified as a string, which means the benefits of strong-typing that Rhino Mocks is normally so good at preserving are lost. Here’s an example (using Rhino Mocks 3.3 and .NET 2.0): [Test] public void Main_Form_Should_Show_Start_Panel_On_Load() { MockRepository mockRepository = new MockRepository(); IMainFormView mockView = mockRepository.DynamicMock<IMainFormView>(); IEventRaiser loadEventRaiser = GetEventRaiserFor(delegate { mockView.Load += null; });...