Suggestions In Porting ASP.NET to MVC.NET - Is storing SiteConfiguration in Cache RESTful? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.

Closed 8 years ago.

Improve this question

I've been tasked with porting/refactoring a Web Application Platform that we have from ASP.NET to MVC.NET. Ideally I could use all the existing platform's configurations to determine the properties of the site that is presented.

Is it RESTful to keep a SiteConfiguration object which contains all of our various page configuration data in the System.Web.Caching.Cache? There are a lot of settings that need to be loaded when the user acceses our site so it's inefficient for each user to have to load the same settings every time they access.

Some data the SiteConfiguration object contains is as follows and it determines what Master Page / site configuration / style / UserControls are available to the client,

public string SiteTheme { get; set; }
public string Region { private get; set; }
public string DateFormat { get; set; }
public string NumberFormat { get; set; }
public int WrapperType { private get; set; }
public string LabelFileName { get; set; }
public LabelFile LabelFile { get; set; }

// the following two are the heavy ones
// PageConfiguration contains lots of configuration data for each panel on the page
public IList<PageConfiguration> Pages { get; set; }

// This contains all the configurations for the factsheets we produce
public List<ConfiguredFactsheet> ConfiguredFactsheets { get; set; }

I was thinking of having a URL structure like this:

www.MySite1.com/PageTemplate/UserControl/

the domain determines the SiteConfiguration object that is created, where MySite1.com is SiteId = 1, MySite2.com is SiteId = 2. (and in turn, style, configurations for various pages, etc.)

PageTemplate is the View that will be rendered and simply defines a layout for where I'm going to inject the UserControls

Can somebody please tell me if I'm completely missing the RESTful point here? I'd like to refactor the platform into MVC because it's better to work in but I want to do it r开发者_如何学Pythonight but with a minimum of reinventing-the-wheel because otherwise it won't get approval. Any suggestions otherwise?

Edit: Areas?" Would it be a viable option to use ASP.NET MVC 2 Areas, where each Area represents a different site, complete with css, javascript, etc.?

---

I agree with the accepted answer. Because this answer did not explicitly go into your question about being RESTful or not I would like to add something about that (1). And also go into your question about area's (2).

0. MVC.NET?

But first I want to say that for MVC.NET, the official term is ASP.NET MVC. With ASP.Net you probably meant ASP.NET Webforms. The full terms more clearly indicate MVC is still just an extension of ASP.NET. Then it's less of a surprise that you can also mix and match MVC views and 'old' .aspxpages in one and the same project, if you so choose. This CAN be an easy way to port a project from WebForms to MVC, by allowing stuff to migrated step-by-step over a periodand getting new stuff out there e.g. the Agile way. Note to be careful to update routing/URL's for users/SEO as you go).

1. Using cache

Using the cache for per-domain customization is indeed RESTful enough. I assume you mainly had question about 'stateless' property of true RESTful services. Only if you also did per-user customization with your SiteConfiguration object would you violate that. When config only differe changes per domain, the state/config is in-a-way encapsualted in the URL (e.g. the domain name) so the state/config travels to and from the user, and your service itself is stateless.

Also using .NET's Cache object as you propose instead of an alternative like the Application object has some advantage according to this SO article.

I personally dislike using the cache for basic acrchitectural things however, because it is untyped. So you have to cast all stuff from the cache. I'm nitpicking here because you have only one big configuration object, so this only has to be done once, and all the stuff in it is nicely typed. But still..

The site I've been working on lately also has per domain customization, but that is basically just the language the site is shown in. So directly at the beginning of each request (global.asax's Begin_Request) we simply set the current CultureID on the CurrentThread (this thread handles the incoming HTTP request for one domain, and serving the response). We can then show english for our-domain.com, French for our-domain.fr, etc. So the culture has a direct one to one mapping with the domain of the current URL. Localization logic can then be done using .resx files. We also have some limited conditional logic on this current cultureID spread throughout our code to allow having some parts being not available, or sending localized e-mails and other not directly request related stuff.

Long story, but spreading the per-domain specifics/config throughout your code in a similar way, based on current domain, would be an alternative. But this would not really reuse the existing logic as you say you wanted. SO I will mention one last alternative.,

You could use your existing SiteConfig class but then use a set of simple static variables (instances of the SiteConfiguration class) for each configuration type that you have. That way everything is neatly typed. You can map the domain name in the URL to the matching static configuration object at the beginning of each request as I indicated, and then access the config of the current request. That is assuming you have a managable number of sites, that are each quite distinct, and that and you don't have to be able to load configuration dynamically from a database or something. Note that using static variables they can still be loaded at app startup from either DB, or from web.config/appSettings (or something else). When you use web.config/appsettings it has the advantage that the site would automatically reload/restart with the new config when you change it.

2. Using Area's

About using area's for different sites instead of different domains. It depends on what you want. But I see area's more for allowing having different parts on one site, that are functionally different. E.g. that don't have much in common and therefore don't share any generic code. Area's basically allow you to put a group of somehow related controllers, models and views into one area of the site. And then via area routing, separate the different functionalities within one part of the site that is apparent to users also via starting with the same URL.

From what you say, it seems meer that all your sites share the same generic code, but are just customized through some configuration. So I don't think area's match your problem.

---

Setting this information in your cache is just fine but anytime your application recycles it will need to be reload which usually isn't a problem. I think this follows the model since each request is providing you with the info you need to pull from the cache since it is based on the requests domain and you don't really need to look it up in a DB or make a costly call to build it except for the first time.

You could also consider moving this data to your web.config file but I am assuming there is one site with many domains pointing to it that you want to customize?

Just make sure your indexing the cached data with the site it's associated with and accessing by that index because all domains pointing to one app will use only one cache.