Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Jon Davis
    #1

    Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

    I have a couple questions. First of all, would anyone consider a
    multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are
    seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface logic but
    that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier implementation by definition?
    Or does n-tier necessitate a network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS
    and SQL Server, i.e. COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered
    programming? If a solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers,
    does this qualify as 'n-tier'?


    Additionally and more broadly, ...

    - "n-tier"
    - "3-tier"
    - "distribute d architecture"
    - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)"

    I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers
    throwing these terms around interchangeably . I have my own opinion about
    these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was wondering what
    the opinions are of others in this newsgroup community. Any thoughts?

    Thanks,
    Jon


    Tags: None
    • Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]
      #2
      Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

      Jon Davis wrote:
      I have a couple questions. First of all, would anyone consider a
      multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are
      seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface
      logic but that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier
      implementation by definition? Or does n-tier necessitate a
      network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS and SQL Server, i.e.
      COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered programming? If a
      solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers, does this
      qualify as 'n-tier'?
      >
      Additionally and more broadly, ...
      >
      - "n-tier"
      - "3-tier"
      - "distribute d architecture"
      - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)"
      >
      I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers
      throwing these terms around interchangeably . I have my own opinion
      about these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was
      wondering what the opinions are of others in this newsgroup
      community. Any thoughts?
      IMO, they're mostly synonymous. I would imagine that many people don't
      consider a design to be n-tier unless the layers are isolated service
      processes (which may or may not be distributed to multiple machines).
      Personally, I find that distinction to be irrelevant in most cases - if a
      design has be properly separated into loosely coupled, highly cohesive
      layers, then the distribution of those layers to isolated service processes
      or separate machines is a straightforward , well-solved problem (.NET
      remoting, SOAP, etc.).

      -cd


        Comment

        • Cor Ligthert [MVP]
          #3
          Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

          Jon,

          Of course, but not as a Tier application but as a layer application.

          In other words the layers exist on the client as an integrated assembly and
          not as more assemblys as with a multi Tier application.

          Just my thought,

          Cor


            Comment

            • Arne Vajhøj
              #4
              Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layeredprogramm ing'?

              Jon Davis wrote:
              I have a couple questions. First of all, would anyone consider a
              multi-layered programming approach (building business objects that are
              seperate from data access logic and seperate from user interface logic but
              that interface the UI and the data) an n-tier implementation by definition?
              Or does n-tier necessitate a network-distributed architecture (beyond IIS
              and SQL Server, i.e. COM+/MTS/MSMQ/WCF) in addition to the layered
              programming? If a solution is properly broken up into its distinct layers,
              does this qualify as 'n-tier'?
              >
              Additionally and more broadly, ...
              >
              - "n-tier"
              - "3-tier"
              - "distribute d architecture"
              - "multi-layered programming (UIL, BLL, DAL)"
              >
              I'm finding a lot of confusion among managers and software engineers
              throwing these terms around interchangeably . I have my own opinion about
              these--how they relate and how they are distinct--but I was wondering what
              the opinions are of others in this newsgroup community. Any thoughts?
              I am old fashioned:

              tiers = something that can but not necessarily do run on
              different physical systems

              layers = logical division within a tier

              so you can have 3 tiers:
              browser
              web app
              database

              where the web app has 3 layers:
              presentation
              business logic
              data access

              Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term
              tier for what I am calling layer.

              Which I think confuses matters a bit.

              But by using the old definition I think all your questions
              is rather easily answered.

              Arne

                Comment

                • Michael S
                  #5
                  Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?


                  "Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
                  news:VNoKg.8680 $_q4.387@dukere ad09...
                  >
                  I am old fashioned:
                  I think you quite modern and right on target.
                  The definitions you gave below are correct.
                  Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term
                  tier for what I am calling layer.
                  Which I think confuses matters a bit.
                  I never seen ms get it wrong.

                  Happy Tiers and Layers
                  - Michael S


                    Comment

                    • Jon Davis
                      #6
                      Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?


                      "Michael S" <no@no.nowrot e in message
                      news:egMFXgyzGH A.1256@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...
                      >
                      >Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term
                      >tier for what I am calling layer.
                      >Which I think confuses matters a bit.
                      >
                      I never seen ms get it wrong.
                      http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...sslayer_cs.asp

                      The link to the above URL originally on the MSDN home page and currently in
                      Visual Studio 2005 Start Page is clearly labeled "3-tier Architecture with
                      ASP.NET 2.0", but this is clearly a programmatic layering discussion without
                      respect to physical isolation.

                      Jon


                        Comment

                        • Cor Ligthert [MVP]
                          #7
                          Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

                          Jon,

                          I completely agree with Arne, the meaning of my reply was the same,

                          I have forever had the idea that the Tier part on MSDN is written by the
                          marketing department of Microsoft. The Tier philosophy is a part of central
                          processing with 3270 or VT100 processing and not for real advanced
                          Client/Server processing, as it is done with Windowforms applications.

                          However, just my idea,

                          Cor

                          "Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME. PLEASE.jondavis .netschreef in bericht
                          news:eUWQvy1zGH A.1256@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...
                          >
                          "Michael S" <no@no.nowrot e in message
                          news:egMFXgyzGH A.1256@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...
                          >>
                          >>Many people (especially within MS technology) uses the term
                          >>tier for what I am calling layer.
                          >>Which I think confuses matters a bit.
                          >>
                          >I never seen ms get it wrong.
                          >
                          http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...sslayer_cs.asp
                          >
                          The link to the above URL originally on the MSDN home page and currently
                          in Visual Studio 2005 Start Page is clearly labeled "3-tier Architecture
                          with ASP.NET 2.0", but this is clearly a programmatic layering discussion
                          without respect to physical isolation.
                          >
                          Jon
                          >
                          >

                            Comment

                            • Michael S
                              #8
                              Re: Diff between 'n-tier' vs 'distributed architecture' vs. 'multi-layered programming'?

                              Well, maybe they got the terms wrong with layer and tier, but not the idea.
                              They still got the concepts right, and don't mix them.

                              I've read a book from microsoft press that got all normalforms in
                              datamodeling wrong by one notch. Hence their second normal form was the
                              third (or was it first), all this while giving examples that held true for
                              the correct form.

                              So maybe I shouldn't defend ms, but go back to only say that Arne was
                              correct in his definitions.

                              But to help the OP

                              Jon: You should check out SOA, and why the typical 3-tier/3-layer
                              architecture people was used to in COM and VB; just don't hack it no more
                              and make for a troublesome architecture.

                              If you want to learn why SOA may be good and want to read for yourself,
                              please do. But I am willing to write a few paragraphs on the subject if you
                              want me to. Partly to help you, but mostly for my himem.sys joke, that
                              people got really angry about, and by so; I need some redemption.

                              But this thread is getting old so you must say ping.

                              Happy Architecture
                              - Michael S










                                Comment

                                Previous template Next
                                Working...