Hexagonal Architecture - Fideloper

ports and adapters pattern (hexagonal architecture)

ports and adapters pattern (hexagonal architecture) - win

Application Architecture - How do you choose? And why are there too many buzzwords?

I just got a new job and my first task was to build a PHP web application. I just wanted to rant because I've been reading a lot.
I chose Laravel because I had worked with it previously (4.1) and I really enjoyed it. I didn't do anything crazy with it and just used the regular MVC pattern. That previous application was an SPA, the server-side application was simply serving the index and then was used otherwise solely as an API.
This next application is working out the same way. But I didn't really enjoy just clumping all of the controllers in "Controllers" and models in the "Models" folder. My controllers ended up getting gigantic while the models were simply used as fronts for Eloquent to interact with data. Say what you will about that, I know that I abused the framework.
I wanted to strive to actually architect this next application instead of just jumping head first into a kind-of-but-maybe-misused-MVC pattern. I knew that as I started making more complicated applications that I was going to be maintaining for longer, I was going to need to examine other methods for building applications.
I've been watching tons of videos on Laracasts and reading a lot about different patterns that others seem to enjoy using when developing Laravel applications.
I read about:
...and it seems like they're all coming back to the same ideas, over and over. Those ideas are at different levels within the architecture, but they come back to interfaces and abstractions, mainly. And these two ideas are covered by up by entire dictionaries filled with design-specific nomenclature and buzzwords. It's nuts!
I just wanted to express that there's a lot out there. Every time I finished examining a new idea, http://programming-motherfucker.com/ keeps popping back into my head.
I just want to stop reading about all of this stuff and get to working. (Which I really should do...) But it's kind of addicting to learn about different methods of structuring programs and increasing the size of my toolbox.
That's all, really.
How many here actually use Domain Driven Design or Hexagonal Architecture and whatnot? How closely do you stick to the ideals of the paradigms?
submitted by Zaemz to laravel [link] [comments]

ports and adapters pattern (hexagonal architecture) video

A Metaphor: Ports & Adapters. The hexagonal architecture uses the metaphor of ports and adapters to represent the interactions between inside and outside. The image is that the Business Logic defines ports, on which all kinds of adapters can be interchangeably connected if they follow the specification defined by the port. For example, we can imagine a port of the Business Logic on which we ... Hexagonal Architecture,also known as Ports and Adapter pattern is an architectural style which promotes and gives structure for achieving separation between actual application / domain logic and various technology concerns and external actors.Alistair Cockburn has a detailed article on this architecture style and below is short definition from the same article. In this article, we will see “ Hexagonal Architectural Pattern ” also known as “ Ports and Adapters ” pattern. As developers so far we have created applications with tiered architecture styles like MVC (M odel V iew C ontroller).With these architectural styles, up to a certain extent, we were able to decouple the domain logic with other functionalities. The hexagonal architecture was defined by Alistair Cockburn in 2005. Cockburn later named it “Port and Adapter Pattern”, but most people still prefer to use the former name as Hexagonal... The ports and adapters pattern (also known as hexagonal architecture) is an effective way of addressing these problems. The problem for existing applications is that re-architecting them may not be economically feasible. So a minimalist approach is to use ports and adapters when you call external services, which you do not control, but not necessarily when using external libraries or products, which you do control. Hexagonal architecture was proposed by Alistair Cockburn in 2005. “Hexagonal architecture” was actually the working name for the “ ports and adapters pattern, ” which is the term Alistair settled on in the end. But the “hexagonal architecture” name stuck, and that’s the name many people know it by today. Ports & Adapters pattern depicts the application as a closed area. The closed area chosen by Alistair Cockburn for drawing the application was a hexagon, that’s why this pattern is also called Hexagonal Architecture. Personally I prefer the name Ports and Adapters, because it refers to the key elements of the architecture, as we will see soon. This arhictecture also goes under the names ports and adapters ... At the very core of the hexagonal architecture lies the domain model, implemented using the building blocks of tactical DDD that we covered in the previous article. This is where the so-called business logic lives, where all the business decisions are made. This is also the most stable part of the software that hopefully will ... As mentioned above, the Ports and Adapters architecture is another name of the Hexagonal Architecture. It comes from the power of the modularity of this architecture. Because everything is decoupled, you can have a REST and JMS layers in front of your domain at the same time without having any impacts on it. Ports and Adapters. Now, finally we can begin to discuss the meat of Hexagonal Architecture. Hexagonal Architecture, a layered architecture, is also called the Ports and Adapters architecture. This is because it has the concept of different ports, which can be adapted for any given layer.

ports and adapters pattern (hexagonal architecture) top

[index] [5716] [2898] [3802] [7930] [2919] [9660] [8298] [9839] [4297] [7836]

ports and adapters pattern (hexagonal architecture)

Copyright © 2024 top.realmoneygames.site