in reply to Three-layer web application architecture

Three, or even more layer architectures aren't anything new. I used to work for a bank that was developing a multi layer application. It used the following layers:
  1. Reverse proxy, hiding the internal structure from the outside world.
  2. HTTP to HTTPs redirection.
  3. SSL accellerator.
  4. Reverse proxy on the corporate network/operations boundary.
  5. Level 4 load balancing switch.
  6. Siteminder URL access check.
  7. Apache/Tomcat front-end, portal to several applications. (This layer did the presentation).
  8. Websphere with *application* business logic (2 databases here: one for the application, one for websphere).
  9. "Common", set of Java classes and a database for *bank* business logic.
  10. Messages system, layer between the application database and SWIFT routers.
  11. SWIFT routers.
Now try solving a "500 error" in that mess.

Abigail

  • Comment on Re: Three-layer web application architecture

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Three-layer web application architecture
by pg (Canon) on Nov 17, 2003 at 16:33 UTC

    First of all, three-layer or two-layer architecture are not invented by me, I just utilized them, and they are actually common topic today. There are lots of tools to support both of them. 11-layer architecture does not sound familiar to me ;-)

    When you cutting something into layers, there is always a question of how and where to cut. Each layer of your 11 layers actually falls in one of my three layer. A good way to define layer boundaries has to be helpful and can be easily used to describe and understand the system and architecture.

[reply]
      I disagree with your negative evaluation of Abigail's post.

      He provided a great example of a mess. His "11-layer" architecture lacks the unified interface shown to the application/display layer, which makes your design work and the "11-layer" cake a pain.

      Plus I thought the last line was kind of funny.

[reply]

In Section Meditations