3 FORMS OF Web Application Architecture

Such terms as ”web app”, ”front-end architecture”, ”Web 2.0”, and ”HTML5 apps” have recently become trendy. Unfortunately these terms tend to be used in a misleading context which doesn’t consider the full specificity of implementation and usage of web app architecture. Today we’ll look for out more about the types of web application architecture in the light of the latest web trends and key issues that matter to software owners.

We’ll outline 3 main forms of web architecture and discuss their advantages and drawbacks for three points of view: software owner, software contractor (developer) and end user. There can be other types but they basically come down to these three as their subtypes.

First we’ll define a web application: it is a client-server application – you will find a browser (your client) and a web server. The logic of a web application is distributed on the list of server and the client, there’s a channel for information exchange, and the data is stored mainly on the server. Further details depend on the architecture: different styles distribute the logic in various ways. It can be placed on the server as well as on the client side.

It’s near to impossible to evaluate these very different architectures impartially. But we’ll try to, using several criteria of evaluation:

User:
Responsiveness/Usability. Updates of data on pages, switching between pages (response time). Such qualities of user interface as richness and intuitiveness used.
Linkability. Ability to save bookmarks and links to various sections of the website.
Offline work. Speaks for itself.

contemporary houses :
Speed of development. Addition of new functional features, refactoring, parallelizing the development process between developers, layout designers, etc.
Performance. Maximum speed of response from the server with minimum usage of computation power.
Scalability. Capability to increase computation power or disc space under increases in amounts of information and/or amount of users. In case the allocated scalable system can be used, one must provide data consistence, availability and partition tolerance (CAP theorem). It is also worth noting that the case, when the number of features/screens of the client app is increased at the software owner’s request, depends upon the framework and implementation rather than the type of web architecture.
Testability. Possibility and easiness of automated unit testing.

Software owner:
Functional extendability. Adding functionality within minimal time and budget.
SEO. Users must be able to discover the application through any internet search engine.
Support. Expenses on app infrastructure – hardware, network infrastructure, maintenance staff.
Security. The software owner must be sure both business data and information regarding users are kept secure. As the main security criterion we’ll consider the chance for changes in functionality of app behavior on the client side, and all associated risks. Standard dangers will be the same for the compared architectures. We do not consider security on the ‘server-client’ channel, because each one of these architectures are equally exposed to break-ins – this channel can be the same.
Conversion: site – mobile or desktop application. Possibility to publish the application form on mobile markets or to make a desktop application out of it with minimal additional costs.

Some of these criteria might seem inaccurate, but the purpose of the article is not showing what’s good and what’s bad. It’s more of a detailed review that shows the possible options of choice.

Let’s outline three main types of web applications based on the roles performed by the server and your client browser.

Type 1: Server-side HTML

The most widespread architecture. The server generates HTML-content and sends it to your client as a full-fledged HTML-page. Sometimes this architecture is called ”Web 1.0”, because it was the first ever to appear and currently dominates the net.

Responsiveness/Usability: 1/5. Minimal optimal value among these architectures. It’s so since there is plenty of data transferred between your server and the client. An individual has to wait until the whole page reloads, giving an answer to trivial actions, for instance, when only a the main page has to be reloaded. UI templates on your client depend on the frameworks applied on the server. As a result of limitations of mobile internet and large sums of transferred data, this architecture is hardly applicable in the mobile segment. There are no method of sending instant data updates or changes instantly. If we consider the chance for real-time updates via generation of ready chunks of content on the server side and updates of the client (through AJAX, WebSockets), plus design with partial changes of a page, we’ll go beyond this architecture.

Linkability: 5/5. The best of the three, since it is the easiest implementable. It’s because of the fact that automagically one URL receives particular HTML-content on the server.

SEO: 5/5. Rather easily implemented, similarly to the previous criterion – the content is known beforehand.
Speed of development: 5/5. It is the oldest architecture, so it is possible to select any server language and framework for particular needs.

Scalability: 4/5. If we take a look at the generation of HTML, under the increasing load comes as soon as when load balance will be needed. There’s a a lot more complicated situation with scaling databases, but this is the same for these three architectures.

Performance: 3/5. Tightly bound to responsiveness and scalability with regards to traffic, speed etc. Performance is relatively low just because a big amount of data should be transferred, containing HTML, design, and business data. Therefore it’s necessary to generate data for your page (not merely for the changed business data), and all of the accompanying information (such as for example design).

Testability: 4/5. The positive thing is that there surely is no need in special tools, which support JavaScript interpretation, to check the front-end, and this content is static.

Security: 4/5. The application behavior logic is on the server side. However, data are transferred overtly, so a protected channel could be needed (that is basically a story of any architecture that concerns the server). All of the security functionality is on the server side.

Conversion: site – mobile or desktop application: 0/5. In many instances it’s simply impossible. Rarely there’s an exception (more of exotics): for example, if the server is realized upon node.js, and there are no large databases; or if one utilizes third-party web services for data acquisition (however, it’s a more sophisticated variant of architecture). Thus one can wrap the application form in node-webkit or analogous means.