Christophe Herreman

Cairngorm 3 was recently announced by Tom Sugden and Alex Uhlmann and has now been released in beta on the Adobe Opensource site.

Don’t expect an updated version of the Cairngorm framework as you know it though. Cairngorm 3 is not aiming to be an MVC implementation, and thus moves away from what version 1 and 2 were, but now consists of a set of patterns and practices, together with a series of libraries that can help to solve common problems.

The Patterns & Practices Group at Microsoft have been promoting a similar mindset for quite some time actually: Prism – patterns & practices Composite Application Guidance for WPF

I can only encourage this decision as it is exactly how I personally think about application design and architecture, especially in Flex and AIR applications. This is also what we are trying to do with Spring ActionScript: our main goal is to provide a solid Inversion of Control container that supports multiple configuration options (XML, MXML, metadata driven component scanning, …) and promote it as a foundation to build applications (and frameworks), with or without your favorite MVC framework. Although we are working on a set of base classes that provide infrastructure for your application (under the name MVCS) with Application Events, Controllers, Abstractions for service layers, … by no means do we want to market the Spring ActionScript framework as yet another MVC implementation. (You might wonder why we are calling it MVCS then, and I’m actually wondering the same… I guess marketing and buzzwords in the opensource world are also important. All kidding aside, the name is certainly subject to change).

What’s in a name

Since this is a complete change of direction for the Cairngorm framework (which it actually no longer is) I would have expected a new name. Continuing to use Cairngorm as a name is in my opinion a bad move and will cause major confusion amongst developers and other people involved in the development process. I think the best thing for Adobe, or at least their Technical Services department, would be to let go of the name and choose a new, fresh name that moves away from the past. (Besides that, who can pronounce “Cairngorm”.)

Dependencies

I noticed that some of the modules that Cairngorm 3 provides depend on other libraries/frameworks, and in general the Parsley application framework. While Parsley is certainly a major player amongst the IoC/application frameworks, and I sincerely respect the author’s work, I don’t think this is a good decision. In case you are wondering: Yes, I would say the same thing if they decided to depend on Spring ActionScript.

The usage and choice of a concrete dependency will have consequences for the adoption and integration of the libraries that Cairngorm 3 provides. Think about it: Why would you want to pull in Parsley, perhaps only to use some of its Reflection API, if you are already running on Spring ActionScript or any other IoC container?

We, the Spring ActionScript team, have actually questioned ourselves about this in the past and have therefore decided to move all the common and reusable code from Spring ActionScript into a set of libraries known as the AS3Commons project. In that respect, I’m a bit disappointed that for instance the AS3Commons Reflect library is not used for reflection purposes, since I think it is more abstracted and unintrusive than a subset of an all-encompassing application framework. Perhaps this may be our fault of not promoting the libraries and the project enough. However, I certainly think that AS3Commons could be a wonderful project and would help to provide common libraries not only to Flex and AIR developers, but to ActionScript 3 developers in general, if it were embraced by the community.

Flex and MVC

Given that RIA technolgies are still evolving at a very fast pace, it is really remarkable to see the huge amount of MVC implementations appear. Not specifically aimed at Cairngorm (at least the previous versions), but rather at almost all MVC architectures available for Flex development, my personal feeling and experience is that the use of MVC architectures in the Adobe RIA space is almost a dogmatic thing and is not needed in most cases. The problem is that people just take an MVC framework as it is and implement it in their applications. More than often not questioning whether or not its usage is justified. Things that could easily and cleverly be solved are ripped apart across layers of the architecture, introducing levels of indirection that are in most cases not needed. The only thing they add is complexity and counter-intuitive development practices.

One of the main arguments for using an MVC framework is that the code is “easy to understand”. Of course the code will be easy to understand if you have been developing with the framework of choice for the N-th time or if you have been digging into the code for a serious amount of time, but ask a newcomer to look at the code and try to explain to you what it is actually doing… I think you’ll be surprised by the responses.

I’m not saying that the use of a particular MVC framework is de facto a bad thing, but the “religious” use and the blind adoption and implementation make a framework a killer for your application. I would encourage everyone to start their next project without an MVC framework and just use the Flex framework with a healthy knowledge of design and presentation patterns. And even if you are using an MVC implementation, think about each layer you introduce, why you need it and the pros and cons it brings.

Conclusion

It’s good to see that Adobe is rethinking their approach to RIA architecture and development practices. I also hope that they will be more open to community input and feedback than they were in the past. Although they did several attempts at engaging the community, I don’t think they really succeeded in that. If not open enough, people will just continue to fork the “framework” and provide extensions that will end up in alternative implementations anyway.

I’m looking forward to seeing how all of this evolves.

This post is filed under a new category named "Lessons Learned". This category will contain posts ranging from the "I can't believe you didn't know that!" to the "I had the same problem." to the "Ah, that's nice to know." kind of posts. Anyway, I hope it helps people out.

OK, I'm a very lazy programmer. So the less work I have typing, the more I like it. Today I was actually faced with my (programming) lazyness when a customer sent us a bug report.

We made an e-learning app some months ago for the Belgian Post that uses a lot of database access. Part of the database traffic is generated by a function that logs page visits. All went well untill today, the bug report was sent, saying there was an error inserting the log in the database. After looking at the error message the ASP page had generated, it was clear that something must have been changed to the database structure.

The insert query I used only specified the name of the log table, no fields, and the data to insert. Something like this...

I didn't think it was necessary to specify the columns to insert since all columns were going to be filled.

Without knowing, the server admin had set up a second database to do some kind of mirroring (I'm no database expert!). This action required all tables in the database to have an extra, invisible, field. Well that field actually caused the trouble with the insert query.

In order to get it fixed, all I had to do was specify the columns in the insert query.

Lesson learned?
Always specify columns in an insert clause, even if the query would work without them!