I have been looking at the various Meanstack frameworks out on the net - and whilst impressed with what they achieve I have one serious concern - the number of files used in a typical stack - meanstack.js uses over 15000 files whilst the bmean example has a modest 1900 in comparison.
The question I am asking myself is would I be happy to put my trust is such a system from a production view point - what happens when something goes wrong how easy is it going to be to find the answer? You can almost bet that when your most important customer logs on it is going to go haywire. Also what happens when Angular version 2 comes along it could require a complete rewrite but by then the stack your using has been customised and difficult to change?
Am I getting over concerned about the technology - my intended approach is to strip the client side code out of the bmean example and rewrite it with my own - at least that way I know (and control) what goes on in the client. Do you think this is the correct way to proceed?
With most systems there is a bit of preparation required before going to production. The same is true with mean.io (using multiple cpu's, improved aggregation, caching, etc etc)
The large number of files is essentially a product of the way npm handles dependencies. Each module is able to define independent versions of the same dependencies thus creating a bit of bloat but at the same time allowing a lot of flexability in nodejs code.
We currently have a number of mean.io projects in production phase and have been very happy with performance and the overall experience.
New releases of the project are scheduled every couple of months, upgrading should not be too much of a problem if you use the package system correctly.
Issues with the project are handled and managed through github issues additional support can be found on our irc (freenode #mean_io) channel as well as on facebook.
For commercial support have a look at the support page
Related
This question already has answers here:
AngularJS 1.4 --> Angular 9 migration vs bigbang rewrite [duplicate]
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have done a ton of research and haven't found anything that has helped me decide what will be the best route (vertical slicing, horizontal slicing, or just a complete rewrite). I am working on a very LARGE program that is very ugly with no comments and need to migrate it over to Angular 8 if possible or at least up to Angular 7. A lot seem to recommend https://angular.io/guide/upgrade however, they don't help too much in migrating to 1.5 first. Does anybody have experience with a large scale migration? Currently, the program is not being used so downtime is no issue.
It doesn't seem like it at first, but a re-write is usually a more cost effective solution than an upgrade. It seems like upgrade would be the fastest time to re-deployment but in my experience if you did the two side-by-side you might find the times similar, except that the migration deployment will have to be all or nothing, where as a re-write means you can deploy with reduced functionality and build up the feature.
More importantly, the on-going maintenance of an upgraded site becomes exponentially harder/time consuming. You're really applying band-aides over the top of previous patches and fixes.
There are new concepts, better native support for directives and controls that we used to use 3rd parties for or roll own own, and it's an entirely new language to understand. Take this opportunity to wipe the slate clean of your solution's technical debt.
Rewrite - Hybrid
Do you need to deploy eveything in one go? Are you interested in Re-Branding?
One thing the Microsoft have done well in the past is the hybrid roll-out of their Preview portals.
The best case study IMO is the Azure Portal.
A few years ago we had a pretty fully featured portal interface for managing Azure assets. This would later become known as the Classic Portal when they started work on an entirely new user experience.
At first release the menu system was largely complete, we could navigate most assets in the new portal but when you came to features that had not been redesigned yet the link took you back to the Classic Portal.
So you could do the same, have the two user interfaces deployed to different URLs, start by making sure the authentication and navigation is largely complete but make all links take the user back to the original interface. Then feature by feature, implement the new interface, but because you can't control everything, keep a button or link on each page that takes the user back to the original implementation until your regression testing confirms that you have reached feature parity.
That is another key take-away from the MS Hybrid approach, significant change like this WILL annoy your users. So while you are in transition, allow the user to choose when they themselves migrate over. Initially MS achieved this at login, the user could login at either of the main urls, and based on your profile you would be redirected to the portal of your choice.
The last step is to restrict access to features in the old interface, by making the navigation and links in the old portal navigate directly into the new interface.
- or less intrusive, add an 'end of life' banner in each page that you have compelted the re-write on in the old site.
Do not confuse this with the Preview Mode in Office 365, the Azure Preview Portal was a ground-up re-write and is still in progress. There are many licensing operations that I still use the Classic Portal for as I still manage some Classic Only azure assets that have not yet been re-deployed.
I would consider the following issues when choosing between Migration/Upgrade and a straight up re-write:
Migrate to AngularJS 1.5 first
This operation is only marginally easier than the upgrade to Angular2+. All of the arguments below apply equally to this process as they do the next upgrade.
One of the reasons to goto 1.5 first is to escape the legacy dependencies that do not have a simple direct upgrade to 2+.
During the upgrade to 1.5 you should consider implementing Component based architecture (if the current code does not already do so)
A key element of components is less configuration and simplifed design, so read this as less to upgrade, less that can go wrong
Components are of course more closely aligned with current Angular implementations, if you do not yet use AngularJS Components, that might be a good iterim step to understand before learning Angular 2+
No Comments
This is a bigger red flag than you think. If the code base is not documented then any sort of maintenance becomes incrementally harder as each time the code must be re-read and re-interpreted before you can affect change.
So if a migration is on the cards, where talking about every line of code at some point needed to be re-read and understood to make sure that it works correctly in the
AngularJS 1+ => Angular2+
While some of the core frameworks and 3rd party libraries can be migrated, most controller javascript files cannot be simply migrated to typescript without a fair amount of effort. It's pretty common in javascript to cut a lot of corners in terms of type definitions and locations of definitions that mean after migration you will spend a lot of time going back through most javascript files one method at a time.
Very large
This is a strong candidate for automation or migration but ultimately it means that the total surface area to test, debug and re-design is also very-large. If the initial migration does not compile, it could be a long road of tweaking before you can get the user interface up so you can start interface testing.
I am from a microsoft background where I always used to keep server and client applications in separate projects.
Now I am writing a client-server application with express as back-end and react js as front-end. Since i am totally a newbie to these two tools, I would like to know..
what is the general practice?:
keeping the express(server) code base and react(client) code base as separate projects? or keeping the server and client code bases together in the same project? I could not think of any pros & cons of either of these approaches.
Your valuable recommendations are welcome!.
PS: please do not mark this question as opinionated.. i believe have a valid reason to ask for recommendations.
I would prefer keeping the server and client as separate projects because that way we can easily manage their dependencies, dev dependencies and unit tests files.
Also if in case we need to move to a different framework for front end at later point we can do that without disturbing the server.
In my opinion, it's probably best to have separate projects here. But you made me think a little about the "why" for something that seems obvious at first glance, but maybe is not.
My expectation is that a project should be mostly organized one-to-one on building a single type of target, whether that be a website, a mobile app, a backend service. Projects are usually an expression of all the dependencies needed to build or otherwise output one functioning, standalone software component. Build and testing tools in the software development ecosystem are organized around this convention, as are industry expectations.
Even if you could make the argument that there are advantages to monolithic projects that generate multiple software components, you are going against people's expectations and that creates the need for more learning and communication. So all things being equal, it's better to go with a more popular choice.
Other common disadvantages of monolithic projects:
greater tendency for design to become tightly coupled and brittle
longer build times (if using one "build everything" script)
takes longer to figure out what the heck all this code in the project is!
It's also quite possible to make macro-projects that work with multiple sub-projects, and in a way have the benefits of both approaches. This is basically just some kind of build script that grabs the output of sub-project builds and does something useful with them in a combination, e.g. deploy to a server environment, run automated tests.
Finally, all devs should be equipped with tools that let them hop between discreet projects easily. If there are pains to doing this, it's best to solve them without resorting to a monolothic project structure.
Some examples of practices that help with developing React/Node-based software that relies on multiple projects:
The IDE easily supports editing multiple projects. And not in some cumbersome "one project loaded at a time" way.
Projects are deployed to a repository that can be easily used by npm or yarn to load in software components as dependencies.
Use "npm link" to work with editable local versions of sub-projects all at once. More generally, don't require a full publish and deploy action to have access to sub-projects you are developing along with your main React-based project.
Use automated build systems like Jenkins to handle macro tasks like building projects together, deploying, or running automated tests.
Use versioning scrupulously in package.json. Let each software component have it's own version# and follow the semver convention which indicates when changes may break compatibility.
If you have a single team (developer) working on front and back end software, then set the dependency versions in package.json to always get the latest versions of sub-projects (packages).
If you have separate teams working on front and backend software, you may want to relax the dependency version to be major version#s only with semver range in package.json. (Basically, you want some protection from breaking changes.)
This is more of a curious question than a technical one. In my company we have an MVP with lots of angularjs components, but now, we are offering the MVP to different companies with specific needs.
Here's what it will look like in real life scenario:
Company 1
Module 1
Module 2
Module 3
Company 2
Module 1 (with a specific feature or change)
Module 3
Company 3
Module 2
Module 3
Module 4 (only for this project)
And we were looking for a versionning system that could fit in our future business model, because as we speak, we are using branches for different companies and other branches for specific component features.
You can see the hell this has become. It's really hard to maintain and it's even harder to deploy the different versions of the application.
I'll be glad to share my findings if we come up with a solution for this case. I'll write a blog post if that's the case.
Thanks!
Are you looking for management of process guidance, or tools?
From a tools standpoint you could use npm, with their private package service or just directed at some private git repo. Bower can do the same.
In the Windows space there's NuGet which you can host your repositories for or there's services out there for that, too.
Git has support for submodules and subtrees, but I don't personally recommend them. Making dependencies part of your actual git history is complicated.
The biggest thing from a process perspective is probably just avoid breaking changes. Put the effort into design of shared components up front so you're not having to redesign everything around the shared component when it changes drastically because it didn't work right the way it was built the first time around.
Treat your shared modules as if they're open source projects. Keep good documentation, clean code, and adhere to semantic versioning. Apply version numbers to stable builds (git tag them so they're easy to check out). Put someone in charge of accepting changes to the component so they can keep track of what everyone else is doing with it and guide it's development.
Fork it into a new package of the requirements one project has is wildly different than the others. Maintaining a component with too many different requirements can become a nightmare.
We are starting a new nodejs project. Our current database is MS SQL. We need to select a module and drivers to use. I'm trying to find a good way to compare all of these different tools without needing to install them individually and test them on our systems. I'll find the occasional blog post that compares a few of them, but I often find these articles to be terse and will only say something like "tedious is light weight". I'd like to know how light weight it is compared to other drivers. Are there any benchmarks out there?
Aside from drivers a good module is needed. There are several that interest me such as sequelize, mssql and seriate. Some of these can use similar drivers in their configuration. However, the modules themselves need metrics to compare them. Right now the best method seems to be scanning the documentation and the internet getting information about these modules piece by piece. It seems like npm should have some page that compares the different modules that are offered on it. Keep in mind I'd like a source that has quantifiable comparisons between these modules and drivers.
This question might be closed as answer is heavily opinion based.
Anyway, what you could do is to search here: https://nodejsmodules.org then check how popular particular module is by checking download count in NPM, this is probably the best (quick) way to minimise the risk to pick wrong module.
I am currently investigating possible options of a migration framework/tool. I like the idea of ruby migrations on which the above frameworks are based.
So I am asking for your experience, opinions and maybe a comparison between them. Are you using them in production?
thanks for responses. The goal of this question was to get a feeling about which tools is used most in the developer community but it seems that migrations are not a hot topic here.
Anyway, I have decided to go with MigSharp as the codebase seem to be pretty clean and it is quite easy to handle and had build in support for MS SQL CE. Second runner up would have been FluentMigrator where I was not able to produce a working example for compact edition.
Cheers
I use FluentMigrator in production, and am a longtime contributor to FM. I think your question is to general; be more specific. Also, FM has a google group which is fairly active if you want FM information.
FM is derived from migrator.net, as I recall. It uses a fluent-syntax, and supports multiple databases. We have taken some inspiration from rails migrations, but it's definitely not a port. Worth checking out.
One thing I've learned is not to put your migrations in the same assembly as you app code. Separate them into a migration assembly, and use that for migrating your databases.
Also, you should always work on multiple environments to avoid problems with migrations run straight against production. I always have at least a development and production environment, and most of the time there is a testing environment as well.
I use mig#.
It works well, but you will need to have some guidelines for usage - as migrations can get complicated.
We use sequence number on the end of our migrations rather than a date-time stamp. This is because we don't know when the date time stamp was set (when they begun the source code change-set; just before committing; some time inbetween) different developers could use different approaches.
Names such as Migration_0000034.cs give you plenty of space.
At this point, I would stick with migrator.net. I like the promise of FluentMigrator, but it seems to not have any better active development than migrator.net (see the issues and pull requests that have languished on their github site).
There is also no easy way to do an ExecuteScalar(). I'd add it, but I don't want to create my own fork, and I see no reason that a pull request would actually land in the master. (Execute.WithConnection is an Action so it will fire on demand rather than when I need it to fire)
So for me, I'm heading back to migrator.net.