|
which in .NET is basically saying one class deserves its own assembly. I don't know how else to read it at least.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. You could have a DAL assembly with multiple DAL classes... one for SQL, one for Oracle, Access, ect.
Multiple classes in one assembly. The classes each do one thing - deal with one particular DB, and the assembly does one thing - houses DAL classes.
Putting your biz logic in the UI or DAL breaks this pattern. But you could have mutiple BL classes in one assembly
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
i guess to me those are effectively separate because they are "interface DLLs" - something i mentioned to another commenter as an exemption to my rule of thumb.
Sometimes, dependency requirements force us to create DLLs like this, or ones with just base types in them in order to fulfill something like that.
but i'd consider each interface its own task, IMO. YMMV
a lot of this really depends on which rubber rulers you're using.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: I don't believe every class deserves its own assembly
Nor does he. He said that a class should only have a single responsibility and extended that to assemblies. I would also extend that to methods, which also should not be written to do everything and nothing at the same time. A class may have many methods, an assembly many classes, but they should share a common responsibility or you will very likely end up in dependency hell.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
adding, on reflection i think we're arguing semantics.
I'd say an assembly is for tightly coupled tasks.
i agree with you about methods and classes.
There are no global methods in .NET.
So if we're talking a single task, per class, and a single class per assembly, under .NET that means one class per assembly, QED
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: So if we're talking a single task, per class, and a single class per assembly, under .NET that means one class per assembly, QED
Really? So you do think that a class may have several methods, yet an assembly can't have several classes that provide different aspect of the assembly's purpose?
Remember my MVP pattern? That assembly had one purpose only: To implement baseclasses(!) and interfaces(!) for just that pattern without any dependency on any presentation technology. For example, a baseclass for views and another baseclass for the presenters. MVP will not work if you leave away the V or the P. 
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, we seem to be arguing semantics, because as I said, I believe an assembly is for a series of tightly coupled tasks.
I'd argue a method shouldn't even perform one full task or entity. That's what a class is for. Methods report, and sub-process.
A series of classes that perform tightly related tasks are what belong in an assembly.
For me that yields assemblies of about 100-150k when using generics, and generally 60k to 100k without them, or with sparse use of them.
In the OP I'm talking about a 10th of that per DLL. I find it excessive. You (presumably?) do not. To each their own.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: In the OP I'm talking about a 10th of that per DLL. I find it excessive. You (presumably?) do not. To each their own.
I simply don't care as long as these assemblies contain what is needed, no more or less. Bundling things without need reduces your flexibility, which may get you in trouble. On the other hand it does not offer any real benefit other than looking nicer.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
in cases like one click deployment and small self installing packages (like utorrent is or used to be?) it's nice to not have to lug around DLLs.
it's also easier to write installers and maintain them when you don't have (like another commenter lamented) 2000 DLLs in a project. Even 60 is a chore.
Better to keep it to a few, maybe a dozen for middling-to-large applications.
Server code is a different story for a number of reasons.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: Server code is a different story for a number of reasons.
Why, actually? A good layered architecture always is a good idea, no matter what it's for or where you want to deploy it. In a way, layers are just another way to separate concerns.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
because server code is more liable to need hotfixing and this is easier with highly segregated DLL code.
And you can architect things and factor them out without putting everything in separate DLLs.
because server code doesn't really need things like click-deploy - server code usually has complex deployment in place anyway, so the infrastructure for supporting all those files is already in place.
because server code needs to be updated without bringing the server down, which isn't generally an issue in user applications.
Classes are for layering. You don't always need DLLs for that.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless something has changed, .NET can handle DLLs in a unidirectional way. That is if DLL A references DLL B, B cannot reference A.
Ran into this on a project where most the UI would be in the EXE, some in one DLL and all the non-UI base logic in a third. Then we discovered the above and two DLLs became four. I soon left that train wreck, so I've no idea how it ended up.
|
|
|
|
|
Try front-end development.
npm install whatever
Your npm folder now has 12641 files for a total of 2.4 MB.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to reference a ".NET Standard 2" library from a project targetting a .NET Framework version earlier than 4.7.2? That'll give you lots of tiny support assemblies to provide the "standard" features that weren't available in earlier versions. Changing the project to target 4.7.2 or later should get rid of them.
Using .NET Standard with Full Framework .NET - Rick Strahl's Web Log[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
no, i'm talking about opening a VS solution and having 60 projects in it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for one or two bigger Dll's, especially if i have multiple exe's accessing the same classes.
i don't see the point of beaking a ptoject into tiny pieces, especially when they have to work with each other.
I'm still of the mindset to keep my code as small as possible because of many years of updating customer software over Dialup. if the whole compiled project got over 2mb i was doing something wrong and needed to refactor.
|
|
|
|
|
All of this I agree with.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never used a DLL in a .NET ptrogram, because I hate dealing with the problems they create. I statically link the libraries I need to access and make the installation process clean and don't worry about DLL conflicts. That's a lesson I learn back with DOS.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
.NET doesn't suffer from most of those old problems with DLL versioning.
It is an extra dependency to drag around as part of the install base though so i feel you.
There is certainly a place for simple install bases, and i think it applies to smallish user applications and services.
sometimes i get *really* extreme and make small .net services and the like "self installing"
mysvc /install
mysvc /uninstall
then i don't even have an installer. =P
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm the only kid on the block to have a PhD and my wife still insiststhat I 'm useless.
I saw an ad the other day for some medication and it said if you experience rapid heartbeat irregular breathing and confusion, consult you doctor right away. I experienced that once, but I married her and the confusion got worse, so the doctor may have been a better choice.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
This may be starting to get into programming, but I'll ask for forgiveness rather than permission:
How do you make an application self installing?
I used to make setup projects in VS2008, but the newer versions of VS don't have that option.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the app but what I usually do is just build my own tiny installer that writes the registry or as is usually the case, runs com registration and installs itself as a service using the service API.
The other option is to use a third party tool (is WIX still around?) to build an installer, embed that as a resource, extract it, run it as a silent install - this will give you all of the fluff of an MSI install - including a program entry in "Add/Remove programs" but that isn't that necessary for tiny apps.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure you were under a rock or something.
Most modern code is client/server and needs a ton of dependencies, which can't be bundled into a single DLL due to license problems.
With that in mind, .NET begs separation of concerns, so during compilation, regardless of the type of code have, you end up with a gazillion Namespaced DLLs.
It would be wiser to have in Windows what NeXT, macOS and iOS started in 1988 and create single folder (*.app) masked as a self contained application where all *.so or *.dll would reside and any foreign code would simply be symlinked from source at install time. But that ship has sailed and not even UWP apps do that successfully.
So with that in mind, if you want clean code you must go the macOS route, else you'll notice that any #WinUI or Win32 code gets filled easily with DLL.
So
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Keep Calm and Keep Coding
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been living under a rock. I just don't do a lot of work with 3rd party components most of the time, and the big offenders like MonoTorrent don't have any 3rd party dependencies but still have like 40-60 projects in them. <-- those are what I'm mainly griping about.
You make an excellent point about macos and while I wouldn't necessarily package my filesystem/shell that way** it's a good idea.
** honestly, I'd just make "filesystem extensions" that allow you to traverse compound files like tars and zips and other containers like part of the filesystem - and supporting native FS calls.
That way you can just dump everything in it's own "subfilesystem" hive and have that mapped to a tar, or even a flat bin file with an OS FAT header on it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
We focus heavily on code reuse, so DLL boundaries are focused on assembly dependencies, not on related tasks or something.
For example, we have a large C# DLL called Core that has no third-party dependencies, so a bunch of stuff is lumped together that are not related.
On the other hand, we wrap a third-party device DLL, so that wrapper is in a DLL by itself due to the extra assembly dependency.
The result is that we have a enough DLLs to allow for DLL-boundary code reuse, but we do not further subdivide them based on related source code. The compromise prevents us from having too many DLLs. We have about 40, each with different assembly dependencies.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
