Plans have changed for tonight. Sorry Rene, we’ll try again on thursday. So at home and time to share the next part of the best practices for Per Tenant Extensions.
And just in time, because when I shared part I last night there was confusion right away on Twitter. Especially about confusing shipping all your modifications as one “big” Per Tenant Extensions with making a monolyth.
Let’s look at Microsoft Windows, or Office. Just because Microsoft packages it as s product does not make the development into a monolyth. You can develop in Modules and ship as a software package.
The “Perfect” Example
It’s already a few years ago that Microsoft took our community by surprise and broke the “Functional App” and the “System Modules” into two extensions.
The Functional App is still a Monolyth. It’s almost impossible to break into modules that compile independently. A few years ago we tried with a few people from the community to do so and failed. Mainly because we lacked the availabilty of enums and interfaces but anyway, the cost of doing it does not weigh up against the benefits and the “big app” stayed big.
The System App is a totally different story. Microsoft developed it as modules that compile individually. You can see this on GitHub.
When we get the product on the “DVD” or create a dependency we can see that even though MSFT makes small modules, they ship a big .app file.
This is also normal in other software frameworks and I’ve seen this also for example when a product like ForNAV is packaged. The fact that design.exe is 75MB does not mean it is coded in one large C# file.
How do you implement this in your PTE Project?
The trick to code in modules and ship as software starts with your folder structure.
Please tell me how many times have you seen this as a “structure” for an AL project:
This is horrible and let’s call this an Anti-Pattern from now on.
The Best Practice is to organize your extension in meaningfull foldernames like this
This is not something I “invented” or Microsoft invented. I actually stole this idea from an Uncle Bob video I saw a few years ago. Aparently other programming frameworks also have a tendency to group code by nerdy categories rather than functional elements.
But with our AL framework we have an extra benefit. I’ve marked that benefit in RED.
You see that my “Big App” has an app.json but my “Core App” also has an app.json.
This allows me to open the “Core” folder separate in Visual Studio Code and compile it as a “Micro Service”.
Every Per Tenant Extension has at least two sub modules. Core and Report Pack. With PrintVis we also have “typical PrintVis things” like Calculation Formula’s and Status Code triggers. This will be different for other vertical solutions.
Reusable modules go into Feature folders with their own App.json that compile separately and can be easily reused. I’ll explain in one of the next posts.
One of the biggest advantages of this way of organizing your code is that the folder stucture becomes your documentation. You can see exactly what the customer wanted customized without even opening an object.
I’ll dive deeper into this in the next blog where I describe the rules for the “Core” extension. Hopefully tomorrow.
Wait a minute Marije, this is not new is it?
No it is not. This way of working could actually have been done in C/Side already and many of us did.
In C/Side we did not have an app.json. Instead we had a “Version List” for an object and a “Documentation” property for table fields.
Many of us have been working like this “unofficially” for decades and had great business succes. Why should we not keep on doing that.
The “Because we can” Anti-pattern
If you ask me, the biggest Anti-pattern we have these days in the Business Central community is the argument “Because we (finally) can”. And this is costing us very valuable time.
I see great AL developers become PowerShell experts, CI/CD gods and Docker Guru’s and all for no reason whatsoever.
We need to look back at C/Side and take back what made us succesful and stop doing things just because we can without adding value for customers.
This and this alone will solve the capactiy problem we have in our community. It is the elephant in the room that for some reason nobody wants to see.