This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Multitier architecture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Multilayered architecture page were merged into Multitier architecture. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2 November 2016) |
![]() | This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
I have to say this article is quite poorly written. The author(s) have confused layers (logical decoupling) and tiers (physical decoupling) shown through conflicting statements throughout the narrative. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The article states that "However, the MVC architecture is triangular: the view sends updates to the controller, the controller updates the model, and the view gets updated directly from the model." However in many MVC frameworks, notably web frameworks like Django, the view never directly communicates with the model. The communication always goes through the controller. Derek Chiang ( talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It is an Information Technology Architecture Pattern but it is NOT a software design pattern, it includes much more including platform infrastructure, hardware and connectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.172.179 ( talk) 12:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's the physical decoupling of concerns; a distributed system. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well it may needs cleaning up (as per the various notes and other discussion), but even so the section (currently at the top) explaining the difference between a tier and a layer was helpful to me. Also the article is flagged as not having any citations, but that little piece does have a citation and (at the time of this writing) it's valid. PragmaticallyWyrd ( talk) 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Whats written in the section comparing three tier to MVC is true but leaves the implication that MVC and n-tier are competing architectures when MVC is a pattern and could be simply part of an architecture. For example the presentation layer of a multi-tier architecture could be MVC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHollingsworth ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comparing MVC and 3-tier is a bad idea - it looks like it makes sense to compare them, but you're really comparing application architecture (MVC) with system architecture (3 tier). Comparing them implies some sort of trade-off or incompatibility, but in fact MVC on a 3-tier system is a very sensible approach to designing a business app. Suggest replacing MVC section with a scenario that describes a hypothetical example of this. 128.32.82.78 ( talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. The section makes no sense whatsoever. I'll remove it! 178.30.68.144 ( talk) 13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to clean this article and the Three-tier (computing) article up and merge them together. Two-tier, three-tier, n-tier, are all just names for the same basic concept (that steps from Model-view-controller) and both articles do a bad job explaining things. I originally just merged the articles (bad idea) and planned to work on them later, but I haven't really gotten the chance yet.
And technically, the article should probably be named "Multiple tier" (why I merged the bigger article into the smaller!) because it's more encompassing.
Anyway, I will work on the articles more before merging them, and maybe others will join in. -- Foofy 07:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.82.22 ( talk • contribs) .
Maybe all of this should just be merged into Client-server, especially since that article already has a small section on multi-tier architectures. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pmerson: I agree with merging multi-tier and three-tier. But there are some other points to clarify:
217.186.131.146 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) cbass:
Merging is all right, as long as i can find multi-tier when searching for 3-tier, for the 3-tier-term is still used in a lot of lectures and articles. So Foofy is right.
Well, this proposal has been up for a while, and it looks like a merge is the way to go. I'm going to get started on it as well as clean up the articles/article in general. I've been learning a lot about application design these past few months so time to put it to some use here. :) -- Foofy 04:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging two-tier, client-server, multi-tier, and three-tier is fine as they are conceptually the same, are terms used primarily by one similar technical subfield (systems/network architecture and engineering) and do not vary much in terms of goals and intent. -- Chris Brown ( talk) 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Multilayer and multitier are not referring to the same thing. Multilayer design refers to dividing objects into different groups in software development, mostly for web applications. However, multitier design is usually referred to as designing the architecture that distributes application-related software or processing load across multiple computer systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 ( talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I was always told to use the hyphen unless it's in the dictionary that way, so I'm pretty sure it should have a hyphen... what do you think? -- Foofy 04:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Each time I sit down to cleanup these articles it turns out I can't decide how to define certain terms because there's no clear consensus on what they mean. After a great deal of reading (and talking to programmer friends), I'm still not sure.
I'd just like some input on this. Which explanations should I use? Both? It wouldn't be so confusing if things weren't split almost evenly (at least for the first two). -- Foofy 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
MVC is a software design pattern and has nothing to do with tiers. In fact, MVC relates to the presentation layer, so not only is an implementation of MVC confined to a single tier but also a single layer. A good example is ASP.NET MVC 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
N-Tier and Multi-Tier mean the same thing.
I just did the merge that was first discussed nearly a year ago. I like it, but people who have spent more time on this article may have different opinions. I don't think it makes much of a difference which is the article page and which is the redirect, but if anyone disagrees, edit away. -- Selket Talk 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article after cleaning up various IP vandalism over the last 12-ish hours. The time is currently set for 48 hrs of semiprotection. IP and new users cannot edit right now.
Note that not all of the recent IP edits were clearly vandalism (192.91.147.34 cleaned up a bunch of it, for example, and is thanked for that). Some were questionable information inserts and, as there was a bunch of possibly related IP vandalism, I have reverted overall back to the last known good version.
Feel free to post any comments or questions here or on my talk page. If you believe that this semi-protection was in error or against Wikipedia policy you can post at WP:ANI and ask for review. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I find the first sentence of this article confusing and am thinking of editing it. I don't see why it needs to bring in the idea of a software agent and I don't think a software agent can execute an application. I would much prefer something on the lines of Somerville's statement [2] in Software Engineering 7th edition p273:- 'In this architecture, the presentation, the application processing and the data management are logically separate processes that execute on different processors'.
-- Bach&Byte 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that they "execute on different processors", that may be possible but it's neither here nor there when trying to explain multi-tier architecture. And even if academics try to define "tier" and "layer" differently, in the industry they're the same thing because neither of them imply anything other than a logical grouping of functions. It's enough to seperate the solution into 1 layer for interaction with the data storage, 1 layer for the logic that processes (filters, matches, manipulates, etc.) the data and performs certain tasks (calculations, simulations, adjustments, concatenations, truncation, transformations, etc.), and 1 layer for the display of screens, forms, reports, results, datasets etc. They may be seperate processes (that may communicate via messages, on a single machine or even accross a network) or they may all reside in one executable. The idea of multi-tier architecture doesn't specify anything about physical implementation, it's just a strategy for better solutions (better for their future that is - in terms of scalability, future amendments, testing, interacting with other software, etc.). Having said that, I think it's an over-rated buzz word for inexperienced programmers, and it turns a 2 week job into a 6 month project. It's only bad code that becomes so convoluted over time that makes multi-tier architecture begin to look like a necessity. A good piece of code should already be significantly modular and losely coupled. However programmers should balance the need to deliver code with their desire to prolong the project unless they are paid according to their performance. They should also further confuse management by regularly displaying their grasp of the latest jargon (preferablly with hyphens if possible). - Australian Accountant, 26 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.242.113 ( talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is contradictory - it starts off describing a multi tier architecture as having logically separate processes, and then describes tiers as being physically rather than logically separated. Pjc51 ( talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at google images search of MVC the diagrams all appear to show the model and view communicating with the controller. this seems contradictory of the statement "the View sends updates to the Controller, the Controller updates the Model, and the View gets updated directly from the Model."
The MVC controller is descrabed as: The Controller object acts as a Mediator between the Model and View objects. A Controller object communicates data back and forth between the Model objects and the View objects. at: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.111.54 ( talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Model View and Controller are three separate logical concerns within the presentation layer. They do not represent tiers.
The main dispute between software developers is whether the Model should consume the domain (business) logic or the Controller. Personally I prefer leaner Models that just contain the data types, values and getters/setters and have Controllers call business functions. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Its paragraphs like that one, that make me think this is just about some made-up buzzword:
An example of 3-tier model is reporting applications that employ ETL tools. Where for 1-tier you may use an autosys JIL as an interface, which is an excellent way for scheduling the process and managing dependencies. The JIL would call a wrapper script on Ab Initio server which calls an Ab Initio graph. This is considered to be 2nd-tier. Ab Initio is an excellent ETL tool which can extract data from multiple databases on multiple data servers and process it. The 3rd-tier would be the database server(s) where the data is stored.
This paragraph doesn't explain anything, it just introduces more buzzwords like ETL, JIL or Ab Initio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:198:209:0:E60:76FF:FE30:1C88 ( talk) 07:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed link to a password scamming site.-- Marvin300 ( talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Just Buzzwords, let the time wasters figure it out while the rest of the world actually achieve something.
Hi
First post on here. Apologies if this is incorrect. However, I have a query regarding the section 'Web development usage' For tier 1 it says 1. A front-end web server server serving static content.....
Should this be 'A front-end web browser serving static content.....'
Regards Tmn0004676 ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The page should have a section to describe the trade offs of this pattern, for example being quite simple to implement and grasp vs. tight coupling between the application layer and the data layer.
2A02:8109:9AC0:6695:6071:7039:A2A1:8616 ( talk) 11:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Multitier architecture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Multilayered architecture page were merged into Multitier architecture. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2 November 2016) |
![]() | This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
I have to say this article is quite poorly written. The author(s) have confused layers (logical decoupling) and tiers (physical decoupling) shown through conflicting statements throughout the narrative. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The article states that "However, the MVC architecture is triangular: the view sends updates to the controller, the controller updates the model, and the view gets updated directly from the model." However in many MVC frameworks, notably web frameworks like Django, the view never directly communicates with the model. The communication always goes through the controller. Derek Chiang ( talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It is an Information Technology Architecture Pattern but it is NOT a software design pattern, it includes much more including platform infrastructure, hardware and connectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.172.179 ( talk) 12:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's the physical decoupling of concerns; a distributed system. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well it may needs cleaning up (as per the various notes and other discussion), but even so the section (currently at the top) explaining the difference between a tier and a layer was helpful to me. Also the article is flagged as not having any citations, but that little piece does have a citation and (at the time of this writing) it's valid. PragmaticallyWyrd ( talk) 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Whats written in the section comparing three tier to MVC is true but leaves the implication that MVC and n-tier are competing architectures when MVC is a pattern and could be simply part of an architecture. For example the presentation layer of a multi-tier architecture could be MVC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHollingsworth ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comparing MVC and 3-tier is a bad idea - it looks like it makes sense to compare them, but you're really comparing application architecture (MVC) with system architecture (3 tier). Comparing them implies some sort of trade-off or incompatibility, but in fact MVC on a 3-tier system is a very sensible approach to designing a business app. Suggest replacing MVC section with a scenario that describes a hypothetical example of this. 128.32.82.78 ( talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. The section makes no sense whatsoever. I'll remove it! 178.30.68.144 ( talk) 13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to clean this article and the Three-tier (computing) article up and merge them together. Two-tier, three-tier, n-tier, are all just names for the same basic concept (that steps from Model-view-controller) and both articles do a bad job explaining things. I originally just merged the articles (bad idea) and planned to work on them later, but I haven't really gotten the chance yet.
And technically, the article should probably be named "Multiple tier" (why I merged the bigger article into the smaller!) because it's more encompassing.
Anyway, I will work on the articles more before merging them, and maybe others will join in. -- Foofy 07:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.82.22 ( talk • contribs) .
Maybe all of this should just be merged into Client-server, especially since that article already has a small section on multi-tier architectures. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pmerson: I agree with merging multi-tier and three-tier. But there are some other points to clarify:
217.186.131.146 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) cbass:
Merging is all right, as long as i can find multi-tier when searching for 3-tier, for the 3-tier-term is still used in a lot of lectures and articles. So Foofy is right.
Well, this proposal has been up for a while, and it looks like a merge is the way to go. I'm going to get started on it as well as clean up the articles/article in general. I've been learning a lot about application design these past few months so time to put it to some use here. :) -- Foofy 04:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging two-tier, client-server, multi-tier, and three-tier is fine as they are conceptually the same, are terms used primarily by one similar technical subfield (systems/network architecture and engineering) and do not vary much in terms of goals and intent. -- Chris Brown ( talk) 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Multilayer and multitier are not referring to the same thing. Multilayer design refers to dividing objects into different groups in software development, mostly for web applications. However, multitier design is usually referred to as designing the architecture that distributes application-related software or processing load across multiple computer systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 ( talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I was always told to use the hyphen unless it's in the dictionary that way, so I'm pretty sure it should have a hyphen... what do you think? -- Foofy 04:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Each time I sit down to cleanup these articles it turns out I can't decide how to define certain terms because there's no clear consensus on what they mean. After a great deal of reading (and talking to programmer friends), I'm still not sure.
I'd just like some input on this. Which explanations should I use? Both? It wouldn't be so confusing if things weren't split almost evenly (at least for the first two). -- Foofy 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
MVC is a software design pattern and has nothing to do with tiers. In fact, MVC relates to the presentation layer, so not only is an implementation of MVC confined to a single tier but also a single layer. A good example is ASP.NET MVC 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
N-Tier and Multi-Tier mean the same thing.
I just did the merge that was first discussed nearly a year ago. I like it, but people who have spent more time on this article may have different opinions. I don't think it makes much of a difference which is the article page and which is the redirect, but if anyone disagrees, edit away. -- Selket Talk 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article after cleaning up various IP vandalism over the last 12-ish hours. The time is currently set for 48 hrs of semiprotection. IP and new users cannot edit right now.
Note that not all of the recent IP edits were clearly vandalism (192.91.147.34 cleaned up a bunch of it, for example, and is thanked for that). Some were questionable information inserts and, as there was a bunch of possibly related IP vandalism, I have reverted overall back to the last known good version.
Feel free to post any comments or questions here or on my talk page. If you believe that this semi-protection was in error or against Wikipedia policy you can post at WP:ANI and ask for review. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I find the first sentence of this article confusing and am thinking of editing it. I don't see why it needs to bring in the idea of a software agent and I don't think a software agent can execute an application. I would much prefer something on the lines of Somerville's statement [2] in Software Engineering 7th edition p273:- 'In this architecture, the presentation, the application processing and the data management are logically separate processes that execute on different processors'.
-- Bach&Byte 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that they "execute on different processors", that may be possible but it's neither here nor there when trying to explain multi-tier architecture. And even if academics try to define "tier" and "layer" differently, in the industry they're the same thing because neither of them imply anything other than a logical grouping of functions. It's enough to seperate the solution into 1 layer for interaction with the data storage, 1 layer for the logic that processes (filters, matches, manipulates, etc.) the data and performs certain tasks (calculations, simulations, adjustments, concatenations, truncation, transformations, etc.), and 1 layer for the display of screens, forms, reports, results, datasets etc. They may be seperate processes (that may communicate via messages, on a single machine or even accross a network) or they may all reside in one executable. The idea of multi-tier architecture doesn't specify anything about physical implementation, it's just a strategy for better solutions (better for their future that is - in terms of scalability, future amendments, testing, interacting with other software, etc.). Having said that, I think it's an over-rated buzz word for inexperienced programmers, and it turns a 2 week job into a 6 month project. It's only bad code that becomes so convoluted over time that makes multi-tier architecture begin to look like a necessity. A good piece of code should already be significantly modular and losely coupled. However programmers should balance the need to deliver code with their desire to prolong the project unless they are paid according to their performance. They should also further confuse management by regularly displaying their grasp of the latest jargon (preferablly with hyphens if possible). - Australian Accountant, 26 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.242.113 ( talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is contradictory - it starts off describing a multi tier architecture as having logically separate processes, and then describes tiers as being physically rather than logically separated. Pjc51 ( talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at google images search of MVC the diagrams all appear to show the model and view communicating with the controller. this seems contradictory of the statement "the View sends updates to the Controller, the Controller updates the Model, and the View gets updated directly from the Model."
The MVC controller is descrabed as: The Controller object acts as a Mediator between the Model and View objects. A Controller object communicates data back and forth between the Model objects and the View objects. at: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.111.54 ( talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Model View and Controller are three separate logical concerns within the presentation layer. They do not represent tiers.
The main dispute between software developers is whether the Model should consume the domain (business) logic or the Controller. Personally I prefer leaner Models that just contain the data types, values and getters/setters and have Controllers call business functions. 5.198.125.143 ( talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Its paragraphs like that one, that make me think this is just about some made-up buzzword:
An example of 3-tier model is reporting applications that employ ETL tools. Where for 1-tier you may use an autosys JIL as an interface, which is an excellent way for scheduling the process and managing dependencies. The JIL would call a wrapper script on Ab Initio server which calls an Ab Initio graph. This is considered to be 2nd-tier. Ab Initio is an excellent ETL tool which can extract data from multiple databases on multiple data servers and process it. The 3rd-tier would be the database server(s) where the data is stored.
This paragraph doesn't explain anything, it just introduces more buzzwords like ETL, JIL or Ab Initio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:198:209:0:E60:76FF:FE30:1C88 ( talk) 07:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed link to a password scamming site.-- Marvin300 ( talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Just Buzzwords, let the time wasters figure it out while the rest of the world actually achieve something.
Hi
First post on here. Apologies if this is incorrect. However, I have a query regarding the section 'Web development usage' For tier 1 it says 1. A front-end web server server serving static content.....
Should this be 'A front-end web browser serving static content.....'
Regards Tmn0004676 ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The page should have a section to describe the trade offs of this pattern, for example being quite simple to implement and grasp vs. tight coupling between the application layer and the data layer.
2A02:8109:9AC0:6695:6071:7039:A2A1:8616 ( talk) 11:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)