I have two nested documents in firebase one called adminChat and the second is TechnicalChat when I display the request for Admin he should see tech chat and vice versa for technical the question it's better to make a separate class for every one of them class AdminFeedback and class TechnicalFeedback and create get() method for every one of them or what should I do I feel that I duplicate my code twice and I want to avoid that.
public static function get($id)
{
$documents = self::$db->collection("problems/${id}/adminChat")->documents();
$messages = [];
foreach ($documents as $doc) {
if ($doc->exists()) {
array_push($messages, $doc->data());
}
}
return $messages;
}
Related
I’m very new to the SpringReactor project.
Until now I've only used Mono from WebClient .bodyToMono() steps, and mostly block() those Mono's or .zip() multiple of them.
But this time I have a usecase where I need to asynchronously call methods in multiple service classes, and those multiple service classes are calling multiple backend api.
I understand Project Reactor doesn't provide asynchronous flow by default.
But we can make the publishing and/or subscribing on different thread and make code asynchronous
And that's what I am trying to do.
I tried to read the documentation here reactor reference but still not clear.
For the purpose of this question, I’m making up this imaginary scenario. that is a little closer to my use case.
Let's assume we need to get a search response from google for some texts searched under images.
Example Scenario
Let's have an endpoint in a Controller
This endpoint accepts the following object from request body
MultimediaSearchRequest{
Set<String> searchTexts; //many texts.
boolean isAddContent;
boolean isAddMetadata;
}
in the controller, I’ll break the above single request object into multiple objects of the below type.
MultimediaSingleSearchRequest{
String searchText;
boolean isAddContent;
boolean isAddMetadata;
}
This Controller talks to 3 Service classes.
Each of the service classes has a method searchSingleItem.
Each service class uses a few different backend Apis, but finally combines the results of those APIs responses into the same type of response class, let's call it MultimediaSearchResult.
class JpegSearchHandleService {
public MultimediaSearchResult searchSingleItem
(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req){
return comboneAllImageData(
getNameApi(req),
getImageUrlApi(req),
getContentApi(req) //dont call if req.isAddContent false
)
}
}
class GifSearchHandleService {
public MultimediaSearchResult searchSingleItem
(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req){
return comboneAllImageData(
getNameApi(req),
gitPartApi(req),
someRandomApi(req),
soemOtherRandomApi(req)
)
}
}
class VideoSearchHandleService {
public MultimediaSearchResult searchSingleItem
(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req){
return comboneAllImageData(
getNameApi(req),
codecApi(req),
commentsApi(req),
anotherApi(req)
)
}
}
In the end, my controller returns the response as a List of MultimediaSearchResult
Class MultimediaSearchResponse{
List< MultimediaSearchResult> results;
}
If I want to use this all asynchronously using the project reactor. how to achieve it.
Like calling searchSingleItem method in each service for each searchText asynchronously.
Even within the services call each backend API asynchronously (I’m already using WebClient and converting response bodyToMono for backend API calls)
First, I will outline a solution for the upper "layer" of your scenario.
The code (a simple simulation of the scenario):
public class ChainingAsyncCallsInSpring {
public Mono<MultimediaSearchResponse> controllerEndpoint(MultimediaSearchRequest req) {
return Flux.fromIterable(req.getSearchTexts())
.map(searchText -> new MultimediaSingleSearchRequest(searchText, req.isAddContent(), req.isAddMetadata()))
.flatMap(multimediaSingleSearchRequest -> Flux.merge(
classOneSearchSingleItem(multimediaSingleSearchRequest),
classTwoSearchSingleItem(multimediaSingleSearchRequest),
classThreeSearchSingleItem(multimediaSingleSearchRequest)
))
.collectList()
.map(MultimediaSearchResponse::new);
}
private Mono<MultimediaSearchResult> classOneSearchSingleItem(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return Mono.just(new MultimediaSearchResult("1"));
}
private Mono<MultimediaSearchResult> classTwoSearchSingleItem(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return Mono.just(new MultimediaSearchResult("2"));
}
private Mono<MultimediaSearchResult> classThreeSearchSingleItem(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return Mono.just(new MultimediaSearchResult("3"));
}
}
Now, some rationale.
In the controllerEndpoint() function, first we create a Flux that will emit every single searchText from the request. We map these to MultimediaSingleSearchRequest objects, so that the services can consume them with the additional metadata that was provided with the original request.
Then, Flux::flatMap the created MultimediaSingleSearchRequest objects into a merged Flux, which (as opposed to Flux::concat) ensures that all three publishers are subscribed to eagerly i.e. they don't wait for one another. It works best on this exact scenario, when several independent publishers need to be subscribed to at the same time and their order is not important.
After the flat map, at this point, we have a Flux<MultimediaSearchResult>.
We continue with Flux::collectList, thus collecting the emitted values from all publishers (we could also use Flux::reduceWith here).
As a result, we now have a Mono<List<MultimediaSearchResult>>, which can easily be mapped to a Mono<MultimediaSearchResponse>.
The results list of the MultimediaSearchResponse will have 3 items for each searchText in the original request.
Hope this was helpful!
Edit
Extending the answer with a point of view from the service classes as well. Assuming that each inner (optionally skipped) call returns a different type of result, this would be one way of going about it:
public class MultimediaSearchResult {
private Details details;
private ContentDetails content;
private MetadataDetails metadata;
}
public Mono<MultimediaSearchResult> classOneSearchSingleItem(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return Mono.zip(getSomeDetails(req), getContentDetails(req), getMetadataDetails(req))
.map(tuple3 -> new MultimediaSearchResult(
tuple3.getT1(),
tuple3.getT2().orElse(null),
tuple3.getT3().orElse(null)
)
);
}
// Always wanted
private Mono<Details> getSomeDetails(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return Mono.just(new Details("details")); // api call etc.
}
// Wanted if isAddContent is true
private Mono<Optional<ContentDetails>> getContentDetails(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return req.isAddContent()
? Mono.just(Optional.of(new ContentDetails("content-details"))) // api call etc.
: Mono.just(Optional.empty());
}
// Wanted if isAddMetadata is true
private Mono<Optional<MetadataDetails>> getMetadataDetails(MultimediaSingleSearchRequest req) {
return req.isAddMetadata()
? Mono.just(Optional.of(new MetadataDetails("metadata-details"))) // api call etc.
: Mono.just(Optional.empty());
}
Optionals are used for the requests that might be skipped, since Mono::zip will fail if either of the zipped publishers emit an empty value.
If the results of each inner call extend the same base class or are the same wrapped return type, then the original answer applies as to how they can be combined (Flux::merge etc.)
I've created a GitHub repo to better understand the problem here. I have two actions on two different controllers bound to the same route.
http://localhost/sameControllerRoute/{identifier}/values
[Route("sameControllerRoute")]
public class FirstController : Controller
{
public FirstController()
{
// different EF Core DataContext than SecondController and possibly other dependencies than SecondController
}
[HttpGet("{identifier}/values")]
public IActionResult Values(string identifier, DateTime from, DateTime to) // other parameters than SecondController/Values
{
return this.Ok("Was in FirstController");
}
}
[Route("sameControllerRoute")]
public class SecondController : Controller
{
public SecondController()
{
// different EF Core DataContext than FirstController and possibly other dependencies than FirstController
}
[HttpGet("{identifier}/values")]
public IActionResult Values(string identifier, int number, string somethingElse) // other parameters than FirstController/Values
{
return this.Ok("Was in SecondController");
}
}
Since there are two matching routes, the default ActionSelector fails with:
'[...] AmbiguousActionException: Multiple actions matched. [...]'
which is comprehensible.
So I thought I can implement my own ActionSelector. In there I would implement the logic that resolves the issue of multiple routes via same logic depending on the 'identifier' route value (line 27 in code)
If 'identifier' value is a --> then FirstController
If 'identifier' value is b --> then SecondController
and so on...
protected override IReadOnlyList<ActionDescriptor> SelectBestActions(IReadOnlyList<ActionDescriptor> actions)
{
if (actions.HasLessThan(2)) return base.SelectBestActions(actions); // works like base implementation
foreach (var action in actions)
{
if (action.Parameters.Any(p => p.Name == "identifier"))
{
/*** get value of identifier from route (launchSettings this would result in 'someIdentifier') ***/
// call logic that decides whether value of identifier matches the controller
// if yes
return new List<ActionDescriptor>(new[] { action }).AsReadOnly();
// else
// keep going
}
}
return base.SelectBestActions(actions); // fail in all other cases with AmbiguousActionException
}
But I haven't found a good solution to get access to the route values in ActionSelector. Which is comprehensible as well because ModelBinding hasn't kicked in yet since MVC is still trying to figure out the Route.
A dirty solution could be to get hold of IHttpContextAccessor and regex somehow against the path.
But I'm still hoping you could provide a better idea to retrieve the route values even though ModelBinding hasn't happend yet in the request pipeline.
Not sure that you need to use ActionSelector at all for your scenario. Accordingly, to provided code, your controllers works with different types of resources (and so they expect different query parameters). As so, it is better to use different routing templates. Something like this for example:
FirstController: /sameControllerRoute/resourceA/{identifier}/values
SecondController: /sameControllerRoute/resourceB/{identifier}/values
In the scope of REST, when we are talking about /sameControllerRoute/{identifier}/values route template, we expect that different identifier means the same resource type, but different resource name. And so, as API consumers, we expect that all of the following requests are supported
/sameControllerRoute/a/values?from=20160101&to=20170202
/sameControllerRoute/b/values?from=20160101&to=20170202
/sameControllerRoute/a/values?number=1&somethingElse=someData
/sameControllerRoute/b/values?number=1&somethingElse=someData
That is not true in your case
I ended up implementing the proposed solution by the ASP.NET team. This was to implement an IActionConstrain as shown here:
// Copyright (c) .NET Foundation. All rights reserved.
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See License.txt in the project root for license information.
using System;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ActionConstraints;
namespace ActionConstraintSample.Web
{
public class CountrySpecificAttribute : Attribute, IActionConstraint
{
private readonly string _countryCode;
public CountrySpecificAttribute(string countryCode)
{
_countryCode = countryCode;
}
public int Order
{
get
{
return 0;
}
}
public bool Accept(ActionConstraintContext context)
{
return string.Equals(
context.RouteContext.RouteData.Values["country"].ToString(),
_countryCode,
StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}
}
}
https://github.com/aspnet/Entropy/blob/dev/samples/Mvc.ActionConstraintSample.Web/CountrySpecificAttribute.cs
As explained in these questions I'm trying to build an application that consists of a host and multiple task processing clients. With some help I have figured out how to discover and serialize part definitions so that I could store those definitions without having to have the actual runtime type loaded.
The next step I want to achieve (or next two steps really) is that I want to split the composition of parts from the actual creation and connection of the objects (represented by those parts). So if I have a set of parts then I would like to be able to do the following thing (in pseudo-code):
public sealed class Host
{
public CreationScript Compose()
{
CreationScript result;
var container = new DelayLoadCompositionContainer(
s => result = s);
container.Compose();
return script;
}
public static void Main()
{
var script = Compose();
// Send the script to the client application
SendToClient(script);
}
}
// Lives inside other application
public sealed class Client
{
public void Load(CreationScript script)
{
var container = new ScriptLoader(script);
container.Load();
}
public static void Main(string scriptText)
{
var script = new CreationScript(scriptText);
Load(script);
}
}
So that way I can compose the parts in the host application, but actually load the code and execute it in the client application. The goal is to put all the smarts of deciding what to load in one location (the host) while the actual work can be done anywhere (by the clients).
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way of getting the ComposablePart graph that MEF implicitly creates.
Now my question is if there are any bits in MEF that would allow me to implement this kind of behaviour? I suspect that the provider model may help me with this but that is a rather large and complex part of MEF so any guidelines would be helpful.
From lots of investigation it seems that is not possible to separate the composition process from the instantiation process in MEF so I have had to create my own approach for this problem. The solution assumes that the scanning of plugins results in having the type, import and export data stored somehow.
In order to compose parts you need to keep track of each part instance and how it is connected to other part instances. The simplest way to do this is to make use of a graph data structure that keeps track of which import is connected to which export.
public sealed class CompositionCollection
{
private readonly Dictionary<PartId, PartDefinition> m_Parts;
private readonly Graph<PartId, PartEdge> m_PartConnections;
public PartId Add(PartDefinition definition)
{
var id = new PartId();
m_Parts.Add(id, definition);
m_PartConnections.AddVertex(id);
return id;
}
public void Connect(
PartId importingPart,
MyImportDefinition import,
PartId exportingPart,
MyExportDefinition export)
{
// Assume that edges point from the export to the import
m_PartConnections.AddEdge(
new PartEdge(
exportingPart,
export,
importingPart,
import));
}
}
Note that before connecting two parts it is necessary to check if the import can be connected to the export. In other cases MEF does that but in this case we'll need to do that ourselves. An example of how to approach that is:
public bool Accepts(
MyImportDefinition importDefinition,
MyExportDefinition exportDefinition)
{
if (!string.Equals(
importDefinition.ContractName,
exportDefinition.ContractName,
StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
return false;
}
// Determine what the actual type is we're importing. MEF provides us with
// that information through the RequiredTypeIdentity property. We'll
// get the type identity first (e.g. System.String)
var importRequiredType = importDefinition.RequiredTypeIdentity;
// Once we have the type identity we need to get the type information
// (still in serialized format of course)
var importRequiredTypeDef =
m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(importRequiredType);
// Now find the type we're exporting
var exportType = ExportedType(exportDefinition);
if (AvailableTypeMatchesRequiredType(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
// The import and export can't directly be mapped so maybe the import is a
// special case. Try those
Func<TypeIdentity, TypeDefinition> toDefinition =
t => m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(t);
if (ImportIsCollection(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesCollectionImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
toDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsLazy(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesLazyImport(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsFunc(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesFuncImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsAction(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesActionImport(importRequiredType, exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
Note that the special cases (like IEnumerable<T>, Lazy<T> etc.) require determining if the importing type is based on a generic type which can be a bit tricky.
Once all the composition information is stored it is possible to do the instantiation of the parts at any point in time because all the required information is available. Instantiation requires a generous helping of reflection combined with the use of the trusty Activator class and will be left as an exercise to the reader.
Being rather new to MVC 3 and EF, I'm trying to understand the best architectural approach to developing an application for my company. The application will be a large-scale application that potentially handles hundreds of users at the same time, so I want to make sure I understand and am following proper procedures. So far, I've determined that a simple repository pattern (such as Controller -> Repository -> EF) approach is the best and easiest to implement, but I'm not sure if that is definitely the best way to do things. The application will basically return data that is shown to a user in a devexpress grid and they can modify this data/add to it etc.
I found this article and it is rather confusing for me at this time, so I'm wondering if there is any reason to attempt to work with a disconnected EF and why you would even want to do so: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/81543/Finally-Entity-Framework-working-in-fully-disconne?msg=3717432#xx3717432xx
So to summarize my question(s):
Is the code below acceptable?
Should it work fine for a large-scale MVC application?
Is there a better way?
Will unnecessary connections to SQL remain open from EF? (SQL Profiler makes it look like it stays open a while even after the using statement has exited)
Is the disconnected framework idea a better one and why would you even want to do that? I don't believe we'll need to track data across tiers ...
Note: The repository implements IDisposable and has the dispose method listed below. It creates a new instance of the entity context in the repository constructor.
Example Usage:
Controller (LogOn using Custom Membership Provider):
if (MembershipService.ValidateUser(model.UserName, model.Password))
{
User newUser = new User();
using (AccountRepository repo = new AccountRepository())
{
newUser = repo.GetUser(model.UserName);
...
}
}
Membership Provider ValidateUser:
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
using (AccountRepository repo = new AccountRepository())
{
try
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(password.Trim()) || string.IsNullOrEmpty(username.Trim()))
return false;
string hash = FormsAuthentication.HashPasswordForStoringInConfigFile(password.Trim(), "md5");
bool exists = false;
exists = repo.UserExists(username, hash);
return exists;
}catch{
return false;
}
}
}
Account Repository Methods for GetUser & UserExists:
Get User:
public User GetUser(string userName)
{
try
{
return entities.Users.SingleOrDefault(user => user.UserName == userName);
}
catch (Exception Ex)
{
throw new Exception("An error occurred: " + Ex.Message);
}
}
User Exists:
public bool UserExists(string userName, string userPassword)
{
if (userName == "" || userPassword == "")
throw new ArgumentException(InvalidUsernamePassword);
try
{
bool exists = (entities.Users.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == userName && u.Password == userPassword) != null);
return exists;
}
catch (Exception Ex)
{
throw new Exception("An error occurred: " + Ex.Message);
}
}
Repository Snippets (Constructor, Dispose etc):
public class AccountRepository : IDisposable
{
private DbContext entities;
public AccountRepository()
{
entities = new DbContext();
}
...
public void Dispose()
{
entities.Dispose();
}
}
What's acceptable is pretty subjective, but if you want to do proper data access I suggest you do NOT use the repository pattern, as it breaks down as your application gets more complex.
The biggest reason is minimizing database access. So for example look at your repository and notice the GetUser() method. Now take a step back from the code and think about how your application is going to be used. Now think about how often you are going to request data from the user table without any additional data. The answer is almost always going to be "rarely" unless you are creating a basic data entry application.
You say it your application will show a lot of grids. What data is in that Grid? I'm assuming (without knowing your application domain) that the grids will combine user data with other information that's relevant for that user. If that's the case, how do you do it with your repositories?
One way is to call on each repository's method individually, like so:
var user = userRepository.GetUser("KallDrexx");
var companies = companyRepository.GetCompaniesForUser(user.Id);
This now means you have 2 database calls for what really should be just one. As your screens get more and more complex, this will cause the number of database hits to increase and increase, and if your application gets significant traffic this will cause performance issues. The only real way to do this in the repository pattern is to add special methods to your repositories to do that specific query, like:
public class UserRepository
{
public User GetUser(string userName)
{
// GetUser code
}
public User GetUserWithCompanies(string userName)
{
// query code here
}
}
So now what happens if you need users and say their contact data in one query. Now you have to add another method to your user repository. Now say you need to do another query that also returns the number of clients each company has, so you need to add yet another method (or add an optional parameter). Now say you want to add a query that returns all companies and what users they contain. Now you need a new query method but then comes the question of do you put that in the User repository or the Company repository? How do you keep track of which one it's in and make it simple to choose between GetUserWithCompany and GetCompanyWithUsers when you need it later?
Everything gets very complex from that point on, and it's those situations that have made me drop the repository pattern. What I do now for data access is I create individual query and command classes, each class represents 1 (and only 1) query or data update command to the database. Each query class returns a view model that only contains the data I need for one specific user usage scenario. There are other data access patterns that will work too (specification pattern, some good devs even say you should just do your data access in your controllers since EF is your data access layer).
The key to doing data access successfully is good planning. Do you know what your screens are going to look like? Do you know how users are going to use your system? Do you know all the data that is actually going to be on each screen? If the answer to any of these is no, then you need to take a step back and forget about the data layer, because the data layer is (or should be for a good application) determined based on how the application is actually going to be used, the UI and the screens should not be dependent on how the data layer was designed. If you don't take your UI needs and user usage scenarios into account when developing the data access, your application will not scale well and will not be performant. Sometimes that's not an issue if you don't plan on your site being big, but it never hurts to keep those things in mind.
No matter what you do, you may consider moving instantiation and disposing of your context to your controller like this:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private Entities context = new Entities();
...
public override void Dispose()
{
context.Dispose();
}
}
You can then pass that context into any method that needs it without duplicating the overhead of creating it.
I disagree that the repository pattern is necessarily bad for the same reason. You create multiple classes to break up your code to make it manageable and still reuse the same context. That could look something like this:
repository.Users.GetUser(userName);
In this case "Users" is a lazy loaded instance of your user repository class which reuses the context from your repository. So the code for that Users property in your repository would look something like this:
private UserRepository users;
public UserRepository Users
{
get
{
If (users == null)
{
users = new UserRepository(this);
}
return users;
}
}
You can then expose your context to these other lazy loaded classes via a property.
I don't think this necessarily conflicts with KallDrexx's pattern. His method simply flips this so instead of
repository.Users.GetUser(userName);
You would have something like
UserQuery query = new UserQuery(repository.Users);
This then becomes an issue of syntax. Do you want this:
repository.Area.Query(value1, value2, ...);
Or this:
AreaQuery query = new AreaQuery { Property1 = value1, ... };
The latter actually works nicer with model binding but obviously is more verbose when you actually have to code it.
Best advice KallDrexx gave is to just put your code I your actions and then figure it out. If you are doing simple CRUD, then let MVC instantiate and populate your model, then all you have to do is attach and save. If you find you can reuse code, move it to where it can be reused. If your application starts getting too complicated, try some of these recommendations until you find what works for you.
Updated: 09/02/2009 - Revised question, provided better examples, added bounty.
Hi,
I'm building a PHP application using the data mapper pattern between the database and the entities (domain objects). My question is:
What is the best way to encapsulate a commonly performed task?
For example, one common task is retrieving one or more site entities from the site mapper, and their associated (home) page entities from the page mapper. At present, I would do that like this:
$siteMapper = new Site_Mapper();
$site = $siteMapper->findByid(1);
$pageMapper = new Page_Mapper();
$site->addPage($pageMapper->findHome($site->getId()));
Now that's a fairly trivial example, but it gets more complicated in reality, as each site also has an associated locale, and the page actually has multiple revisions (although for the purposes of this task I'd only be interested in the most recent one).
I'm going to need to do this (get the site and associated home page, locale etc.) in multiple places within my application, and I cant think of the best way/place to encapsulate this task, so that I don't have to repeat it all over the place. Ideally I'd like to end up with something like this:
$someObject = new SomeClass();
$site = $someObject->someMethod(1); // or
$sites = $someObject->someOtherMethod();
Where the resulting site entities already have their associated entities created and ready for use.
The same problem occurs when saving these objects back. Say I have a site entity and associated home page entity, and they've both been modified, I have to do something like this:
$siteMapper->save($site);
$pageMapper->save($site->getHomePage());
Again, trivial, but this example is simplified. Duplication of code still applies.
In my mind it makes sense to have some sort of central object that could take care of:
Retrieving a site (or sites) and all nessessary associated entities
Creating new site entities with new associated entities
Taking a site (or sites) and saving it and all associated entities (if they've changed)
So back to my question, what should this object be?
The existing mapper object?
Something based on the repository pattern?*
Something based on the unit of work patten?*
Something else?
* I don't fully understand either of these, as you can probably guess.
Is there a standard way to approach this problem, and could someone provide a short description of how they'd implement it? I'm not looking for anyone to provide a fully working implementation, just the theory.
Thanks,
Jack
Using the repository/service pattern, your Repository classes would provide a simple CRUD interface for each of your entities, then the Service classes would be an additional layer that performs additional logic like attaching entity dependencies. The rest of your app then only utilizes the Services. Your example might look like this:
$site = $siteService->getSiteById(1); // or
$sites = $siteService->getAllSites();
Then inside the SiteService class you would have something like this:
function getSiteById($id) {
$site = $siteRepository->getSiteById($id);
foreach ($pageRepository->getPagesBySiteId($site->id) as $page)
{
$site->pages[] = $page;
}
return $site;
}
I don't know PHP that well so please excuse if there is something wrong syntactically.
[Edit: this entry attempts to address the fact that it is oftentimes easier to write custom code to directly deal with a situation than it is to try to fit the problem into a pattern.]
Patterns are nice in concept, but they don't always "map". After years of high end PHP development, we have settled on a very direct way of handling such matters. Consider this:
File: Site.php
class Site
{
public static function Select($ID)
{
//Ensure current user has access to ID
//Lookup and return data
}
public static function Insert($aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Do whatever it is you are doing
//Return new ID
}
public static function Update($ID, $aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Update necessary fields
}
Then, in order to call it (from anywhere), just run:
$aData = Site::Select(123);
Site::Update(123, array('FirstName' => 'New First Name'));
$ID = Site::Insert(array(...))
One thing to keep in mind about OO programming and PHP... PHP does not keep "state" between requests, so creating an object instance just to have it immediately destroyed does not often make sense.
I'd probably start by extracting the common task to a helper method somewhere, then waiting to see what the design calls for. It feels like it's too early to tell.
What would you name this method ? The name usually hints at where the method belongs.
class Page {
public $id, $title, $url;
public function __construct($id=false) {
$this->id = $id;
}
public function save() {
// ...
}
}
class Site {
public $id = '';
public $pages = array();
function __construct($id) {
$this->id = $id;
foreach ($this->getPages() as $page_id) {
$this->pages[] = new Page($page_id);
}
}
private function getPages() {
// ...
}
public function addPage($url) {
$page = ($this->pages[] = new Page());
$page->url = $url;
return $page;
}
public function save() {
foreach ($this->pages as $page) {
$page->save();
}
// ..
}
}
$site = new Site($id);
$page = $site->addPage('/');
$page->title = 'Home';
$site->save();
Make your Site object an Aggregate Root to encapsulate the complex association and ensure consistency.
Then create a SiteRepository that has the responsibility of retrieving the Site aggregate and populating its children (including all Pages).
You will not need a separate PageRepository (assuming that you don't make Page a separate Aggregate Root), and your SiteRepository should have the responsibility of retrieving the Page objects as well (in your case by using your existing Mappers).
So:
$siteRepository = new SiteRepository($myDbConfig);
$site = $siteRepository->findById(1); // will have Page children attached
And then the findById method would be responsible for also finding all Page children of the Site. This will have a similar structure to the answer CodeMonkey1 gave, however I believe you will benefit more by using the Aggregate and Repository patterns, rather than creating a specific Service for this task. Any other retrieval/querying/updating of the Site aggregate, including any of its child objects, would be done through the same SiteRepository.
Edit: Here's a short DDD Guide to help you with the terminology, although I'd really recommend reading Evans if you want the whole picture.