Single layer ABP modules

[antosubash]

Proposal

Right now, ABP modules are organized in a DDD way. This means that there are multiple layers in a module: Domain, Application, UI, EF Core, and more. This is a good approach for a large application, but it is not suitable for a small application. In a small application, we don't need to separate the layers. We can put all the code in a single layer. This will make the application simpler and easier to understand. This is the main idea of this proposal. We already have a no-layered template, which is a really good start.

Why?

• No every application needs to be a large application. Some applications are small and simple. We don't need to over-engineer them.
• Even if the application is large, we can still use the single-layer approach for some modules.
• No every developer is familiar with DDD. We can make the application easier to understand for them.
• Some developers like to use other design patterns instead of DDD. We can make the application easier to understand for them.
• It is easier to learn a single-layer approach than a multi-layer approach.

Chat GPT Version

So, after writing this I asked Chat GPT to write a version of this proposal. Here is the result:

• Single layer ABP modules are a simplified way of creating applications with ABP framework without using a layered architecture. They can be useful for simple and short-term applications that do not require much maintainability or scalability.
• Single layer ABP modules have the same functionality, features and modules as the standard application startup template, but they are all contained in a single project (.csproj). This makes it easier to start developing and deploying applications with ABP framework.
• Single layer ABP modules still follow the best practices and conventions of ABP framework, such as dependency injection, localization, authorization, settings, etc. They also support modular development by allowing to add or remove pre-built or custom modules as NuGet packages.
• Single layer ABP modules can be created using the CLI tool or the online template generator. They can also be converted to a layered architecture later if needed by following some steps described in the documentation.
• Single layer ABP modules are suitable for developers who want to quickly create applications with ABP framework without worrying about architectural complexity or long-term maintainability. They can also be used for prototyping or learning purposes before moving to a layered architecture.

its scary how good it is. I think it is better than my version. What do you think?

Conclusion

I just want to start a discussion on this. I think it is a good idea. I'm not sure what others think about this. I would like to hear your opinions. Please share your thoughts. So that we can make ABP better. Thanks.

[hikalkan]

Thanks for the suggestion. I see why you want that and it is very reasonable. ABP CLI may create a single csproj based on preferences (DB selection, UI selection, etc). The template (that is used by CLI to generate the module project) will be complicated, but it can be done.

[antosubash]

@hikalkan Thanks for your reply. I left it for a while thinking others will also have an opinion on this. But it seems like not many are interested in the idea. I'm experimenting with this idea here https://github.com/antosubash/abp-module-template I will close this discussion for now.

[gfo2007]

hi @antosubash your idea is extremely interesting. In fact I am in agreement with you. I wish I could have a single layer version of abp instead of the many projects which can be sometimes confusing especially if you are not planning to use microservices.

Any progress on this please? I tried using the single layer template but keep getting errors.

[antosubash]

@gfo2007 there is no progress on this. I'm just using it for my personal use for now. after using the fast-endpoints, something simpler will be a better choice. but I have not decided on anything. It is good to know it is not just me but other people also see the value in this.