Suggestions needed on an architecture for a multiple clients and customisable web application [closed]

Question

Our product is a web based course managemant system. We have 10+ clients and in future we may get more clients. (Asp.net,SQL Server)

Currently if one of our customers need extra functionality or customised business logic, we will change the db schema and code to meet the needs.

(we only have one branch code base and one database schema)

To make the change wont affect each others route, we use a client flag, which defined in a web config file, thus those extra fields and biz logic only applied to a particular customer's system.

if(ClientId = 'ABC')
{
   //DO ABC Stuff
}
else
{
   //Normal Route
}

One of our senior colleagues said, in this way, small company like us can save resources on supporting multiple resources.

But what I feel is, this strategy makes our code and database even harder to maintain.

Anyone there crossed similar situation? How do you handle that?

Update:If this is not a right question for SO, can someone move this question to a proper stackexchange site?

Update2: you are right. The code is becoming smelly now, and I quite sure will be a nightmare sooner or later. Our company is doing the product and to save the effort, later products for other customers are based on the previous one. I know the ideal way is seperate the @e-j-brennan dev teams into 2 parts. One team works on core product and made it highly customisable, and team two works on customising for a particular client. However if since our company is so small, it is really a dilemma situation. :(

Answer 1

I think you need to decide if you sell custom software, that you tailor for each client, or 'off-the-shelf' software that is one-size-fits-all (and maybe customizable thru functionality you provide).

When you only have a handful of clients like you do now, you can get away with what you are doing, but I can almost guarantee that if you continue down this road, and your client base increases and the amount of client-specific customization's increases as well, you will have a nightmare on hand; I've been thru this many times for multiple clients, and it always ends the same way. It all is manageable until it is not, and then it is a royal pain-in-the-neck that could make your life very difficult indeed.

If you decide you are a custom company, and want to have multiple versions of the software and database, that is fine, just make sure you charge the full cost for it - i.e. factor in that you may need to maintain multiple levels of source code and databases and factor in that upgrades are going to take many multiples of effort to rollout as you will need to test each client's code base.

If you decide you want to be an 'off-the-shelf' type of product, then your best bet is provide the ability for each client to customize their experience, without the need for code changes - i.e. built in the customization capability thru config screens and tables that control how things work - but everyone will still use the same underlying code and database. Much more work upfront, but saves you boatloads of time down the road.

Answer 2

People working with systems that have to change or be customized, have developed patterns to handle such concerns.

You should definitely start by reading a good book on Inversion of Control. In short, you can build your systems by defining building blocks (contracts, expressed as interfaces) and provide multiple implementations. There are multiple benefits of such approach but to mention just two: - you can handle customizations by providing diffent implementations of the same interfaces - you can reconfigure your application statically or dynamically but both approaches are far more clean than your "if"

When it comes to the data layer, study the repository pattern. It helps to organize the data access in a way that you can switch between different providers. It fits great wiht ioc.

And just a technical tip - nhibernate supports dynamic properties. You just provide additional columns in the mapping and nh is able to support it from the same code base. This way you can target different databases with slightly different db schemas.

Answer 3

I have also been in your position, and I agree it is a difficult one. In my case, I was building custom single-product sites for clients. While each site followed a similar layout and workflow, there had to be enough flexibility for each to have a wholly custom design, custom rules around shipping and coupons, and different merchant gateways and configurations.

After some years, we did end up with something maintainable. First, we created libraries to house all of our common code and put those libraries into a TFS project simply called Common. Then, we created a new TFS project for each site (not client, as many clients had multiple products/sites) and branched the applicable projects into them from Common. Next, we created a VS Template project that contained a skeleton of the site, including "design-less" views, controllers, and their action methods (remember, each site had the same basic flow). Also, each site ran on its own database, which was cloned from an otherwise unused and mostly empty Template DB.

With each site running on its own branch and DB, modifications could be made to the original flow and design that was installed by the template (which would never need to be merged back in) without affecting any other site. For customizing business methods, like shipping calculations, we could create a subclass of the common class and override where needed. Part of what enabled this was converting all our code to use Dependency Injection. Specifically, each Controller had injected Services, and each Service had injected Repositories. Merchant Processing was also coded to an interface and injected. Also worth mentioning is that this allowed us to hard-code all of the upsell logic for each site (you bought product X, so we recommend Y), which was much easier to create and maintain compared to defining complex configuration rules in our old upsell rule engine. I don't know if you have anything like that...

Sometimes we would want to make a change to the Common code itself, which was usually prompted by a specific need for a specific site. In that case, we'd make the change on that branch, merge it to Common, and then merge it to the other sites at our convenience (great for "breaking" changes or changes that also required a change to the DB). Similarly for DB changes, we would update the Template DB and then write a little script to update the other site DBs with the same schema changes ( still had to be smart and careful about it).

An added benefit was that we also created Mock repositories that would be used/injected in a "Design" build configuration, which enabled the designers to jump around the application and work on screens without literally submitting themselves to the workflow. It also allowed them to start working on a site before there was anything done on the back-end, which was very important for those anxious clients who need to "see something".

10+ clients is definitely not a small number with what you're talking about. Three was pain enough for me. We had over 30 sites running at one time, maintained by three developers and two designers.

Finally, I know it's outside the scope of your question and a bit presumptuous, but getting "final" client sign-off on design before the designers actually went about implementing it (and before devs did their thing) also saved us a lot of costly rework. I know no design is final, but increasing efficiency on the implementation end gave the clients less time to change their minds about the design they approved.

I hope that at least gives you some approaches to think about.