I’m going to spend a few minutes here discussing some advice for designing/maintaining large enterprise-grade .NET applications, particularly ones that you sell to others, rather than in-house creations.
Disclaimer: I work largely with big applications used by enterprise customers. I imagine a lot of people reading this do as well, but plenty of people may disagree with some of my thoughts/suggestions. What follows is just based on my experience of designing and deploying user-driven ASP.NET applications.
Microservices are all the rage right now, and they are very cool, I will not deny that; small blocks of easy-to-maintain logic that all build, deploy and start quickly are brilliant. They’re great when you are deploying your own software, either onto your own premise or in the cloud; but what if your software has to be deployed onto someone else’s environment, by the owner of that environment?
What if they don’t use containers, or even use virtualisation?
What if they have no DevOps pipeline at all, and everything must be done manually?
What if those global customers have disparate regulatory and internal governance concerns that govern how and where data is stored, and how your application is managed?
In these situations, deployment simplicity is one of the most important considerations we have, and microservices deployment is by no means simple.
What I need is to keep the number of deployable components to a minimum. My goal is a one-click installer, followed by minimal configuration.
I asked a panel at a recent Microsoft Azure conference what solutions/plans they had for taking a complex microservices architecture and deploying it in someone else’s infrastructure as a simple-to-install component. If they use Azure as well, then you might be in luck in the near future, but other than that I didn’t get any answers that gave me hope for distributable microservice packages.
In the modern development ecosystem, some people think ‘monolith’ is a dirty word. They’re seen as inevitable blobs of spaghetti code, horrible bloat and painful development experiences. But that doesn’t have to be true.
I’m going to write up a couple of blog posts that go into specific tips for maintaining enterprise ASP.NET monoliths, but I’ll start with some general advice.
All of the following applies to ASP.NET applications on the full .NET Framework, and .NET Core (soon to be known as .NET 5).
The concept of a ‘Modular Monolith’ is not new. If you don’t break your application into multiple libraries (i.e. DLLs), you’re going to get into the world of spaghetti code so fast it will make your source control repository collapse in on itself.
I find that circular reference prevention actually ends up helping to enforce good design patterns, which you do not get if everything is in one big project.
Even if all your code is super tidy, if you’re distributing your software to enterprise customers, at some point you are going to need to patch something, because big customers just don’t upgrade to your latest version very often (once a decade is not that unusual). They certainly aren’t going to just upgrade to the latest build on trunk/master when they find a bug that needs fixing.
If you need to reissue the entire application to patch something, your customer’s internal test teams are going to cry foul, because they can’t predict the impact of your changes, so they’ll say they need to retest the whole thing. They definitely won’t go on trust when you say that all your automated tests pass.
So, to that end, do not build an ASP.NET (v4 or Core) web application that sits in one project (despite what most intro tutorials start off telling you to do). I don’t care what size it is, break it up.
You can add your own Assembly Loading startup process if you need to. The .NET loaders do a great job of loading your references for you, but I find you end up needing a bit more control than you get from the default behaviour. For example, you can explicitly load the libraries of your application based on some manifest file (helpful to control patched DLL versions).
If you can, then build your application using a micro-kernel architecture. By micro-kernel, I mean that there should be a central core of your application that provides base technical support features (data access, logging, dependency injection, etc) but adds no actual functionality to your application.
Once you’ve got that, you can:
- Update (and patch) blocks of functionality in your application easily. These change much more often than your core.
- Create customer-specific features (which happens all the time) without polluting your general application code.
- Develop and test your functionality blocks in isolation.
- Scale-out your development to multiple teams by giving them different blocks of functionality to work on.
Does that sound familiar? A lot of those advantages are shared with developing microservices; small blocks of functionality with a specific problem domain, that can be developed in isolation.
In terms of deployment we’ve still got one deployment package; it’s your CI system that should bring the Core and Functionality components together into one installer or other package, based on a list of required components for a given customer or branch.
I will say that defining a micro-kernel architecture is very hard to do properly, especially if you have to add it later on, to an existing application architecture.
Pro tip – define your own internal NuGet packages for your Core components, so they can be distributed easily; you can then easily ‘release’ new Core versions to other teams.
If you output NuGet packages from your CI system, you can even have some teams that need Core functionality in development working off an ‘alpha’ build of Core.
(or ‘if you use a data context in an MVC controller the compiler will slap you’)
Just because everything may be running in one process doesn’t mean you shouldn’t maintain strict separation of layers.
At a minimum, you should define a Business layer that is allowed to access your database, and a UI/Web Service layer, that is not.
The business layer should never consume a UI service, and the UI layer should never directly access/modify data.
Clients of your application should only ever see that UI or Web Service layer.
You could enforce all of this through code reviews, but I find things can still slip through the gaps, so I like to make my API layout do the work in my Core to enforce the layout.
I find a good way to do this in a big .NET application (micro-kernel or otherwise) is to:
- Define clear base classes that support functionality in each layer. For example, create a MyAppBusiness class in your business layer, that all business services must derive from. Similarly, define a MyAppController class that all MVC controllers will derive from (which in turn derives from the normal Controller class).
- In those classes, expose protected methods to access core services that each layer needs. So your base MyAppBusiness class can expose data access to derived classes, and your MyAppController class can provide localisation/view-rendering support.
- In your start-up procedure (preferably when you register your Dependency Injection services, if you use it, which you should), only register valid services, that derive from the right base class. Enforce by namespace/assembly if necessary. Throw exceptions if someone has got it wrong.
Where possible, developer mistakes should be detectable/preventable in code. Bake it into your APIs and you can make people follow standards because they can’t do anything if they don’t.
In future posts on these sort of topics, I’ll talk about:
- Tips for working with Entity Framework in applications with a complex database
- Automated testing of big applications
- Using PostSharp to verify developer patterns at compile time
..and any other topics that spring to mind.