From The Official Guide - Mastering ABP Framework, Chapter 15 Working with Modularity, page 416, there are 4 isolation levels for an applicaion module defined in the book, one of them called 'Bounded contexts' and it's definition is as below:
A module can be part of a large monolith application, but it hides its
internal domain objects and database tables from other modules. Other
modules can only use its integration services and subscribe to the
events published by that module. They can't use the database tables of
the module in SQL queries. The module may even use a different kind of
DBMS for its specific requirements. That is the bounded context
pattern in domain driven design. Such a module is a good candidate to
convert to a microservice if you want to convert your monolith
application to a microservice solution in the future.
My question is:
An ABP application module solution is formed by several projects, for example:
Application
Application.Contracts
Domain Domain.Share
EntityFrameworkCore
HttpApi
HttpApi.Host
Web
As we known, each of those project will be compiled to an individual assembly, so how can i achieve 'The module should hides its internal domain objects and database tables from other modules'?
For a microservice, a bounded context is isolated in the application level, so it still can use the 'public' modifier to declare the aggregate root or other entities and then the application layer can use them. But a bounded context as a application module will be referenced by other modules or applications, once been referenced, all the public members can be directly use, how can I make them 'invisible' to other modules but at the same time 'visible' to the application layer inside??
One way i think of is to use the ‘internal’ modifier to declare all the entities, Aggreget roots and all other domian objects, but in that case, the Application layer will not be able to use the objects from the domain layer as well. so to overcome that, i need to combined the application layer and domain layer into a single project, but doing this really makes me feel very inelegant, and the most harmful side-effect is that the entities inside the aggregate will exposed to the application layer.
I can't find any example from the official guid and the website docs, is there any 'best practice' around?
Related
I haven't found anything concrete on the topic from the gurus, except
There are other ways to implement an Anticorruption Layer, such as by
means of a Repository (12). However, since Repositories are typically used
to persist and reconstitute Aggregates, creating Value Objects by that means
seems misplaced. If our goal is to produce an Aggregate from an Anticorrup-
tion Layer, a Repository may be a more natural source.
from Vernon Vaughn.
What my concern is that mostly ORMs/queries are used as examples of Repositories in the DDD literature. My project is very scarce in domain logic cause it's mainly a wrapper on a couple of APIs and combines the outcome of those Contexts. The responsibilities of the project are broad and could fit many areas/contexts of the business as a whole. The only architectural rule forced from the beginning is the onion architecture and at least the DDD technical modeling concepts seem fitting for me. I must say it's hard to reason about the domain in this particular ongoing project.
Does an external service (API) fit the DDD definition of a Repository?
Maybe?
REPOSITORIES address the middle and end of the [domain object's] life cycle, providing the means of finding and retrieving persistent objects while encapsulating the immense infrastructure involved.
Repository is a pattern, motivated by the notion of separation of concerns -- you shouldn't have to fuss with the details of persistence when you are working on the domain logic.
DDD is about the domain only. Details of how your app persists entities are not of its concern. That's the reason why you define the interface (in the case of .NET) of your repository in your domain, but the actual implementation is part of the infrastructure of your code.
Repositories are nothing but a pattern for you to do "CRUD" operations on an entity without the concerns of how is done. Remember that your client class (the one using the repository) can only see the exposed public methods. Whatever happens inside, it's a mystery :)
DDD says, give me an interface for me to operate. How you do it, that's your problem. You can effectively persist your entities using an external API (think of Twitter API), a text file, ORM (direct connection to a database). DDD doesn't care.
take a modern JavaScript website as an example. You'll have plenty of REST calls to create/find/update/delete your domain objects.
In the case of a server application, you'll have a database and a DAO implementation as a client interface to your database. In your web application, you'll also have some REST-client functionality as client interface to your server application. Both are considered repositories, no matter if the implemenentation of the client interface access data in your database / your server / your file sytem etc.
I'm currently facing some doubts about layering and repositories.
I was thinking of creating my repositories in a persistence module. Those repositories would inherit (or implement/extend) from repositories created in the domain layer module, being kept "persistence agnostic".
The issue is that from all I can see, the necessities of the domain layer regarding its repositories are quite humble. In general, they tend to be rather CRUDish.
It's in general at the application layer level, when solving particular business use-cases that the queries tend to be more complex and contrived (and thus, the number of repository's methods to explode).
So this raises the question of how to deal with this:
1) Should I just leave the domain repository interfaces simple and then just add the extra methods in the repository implementations (such that the application layer, that does know about the repository implementations, can use them)?
2) Should I just add those methods at the domain level repository implementations? I think not.
3) Should I create another set of repositories to be used just at the application layer level? This would probably mean moving to a more CQRSesque application.
Thanks
I think you should react to the realities of your business / requirements.
That is, if your use-cases are clearly not "persistence agnostic" then don't hold on to that particular restriction. Not everything can be reduced to CRUD. In fact I think most things worth implementing can't be reduced to CRUD persistence. Most database systems relational or otherwise have a lot of features nowadays, and it seems quaint to just ignore those. Use them.
If you don't want to mix SQL with other code, there are still a lot of other "patterns" that let you do that without requiring you to abstract access to something you actually don't need abstraction to.
On the flipside, you build a dependency to a particular persistence system. Is that a problem? Most of the time it actually isn't, but you have to decide for yourself.
All in all I would choose option 4: Model the problem. If I need a complicated SQL to build a use-case, and I don't need database independence (I rarely if ever do), then just write it where it is used, end of story.
You can use other tools like refactoring later to correct design issues.
The Application layer doesn't have to know about the Infrastructure.
Normally it should be fine working with just what Repository interfaces declared in the Domain provide. The concrete implementations are injected at runtime.
Declaring repository interfaces in the Domain layer is not only about using them in domain services but also elsewhere.
Should I create another set of repositories to be used just at the
application layer level? This would probably mean moving to a more
CQRSesque application.
You could do that, but you would lose some reusability.
It is also not related to CQRS - CQRS is a vertical division of the whole application between queries and commands, not giving horizontal layers different ways of fetching data.
Given that a repository is not about querying but about working with full aggregates most of the time perhaps you could elaborate on why you may need to create a separate set of repositories that are used only in your application/integration layer?
Perhaps you need to have a read-specific implementation that is optimised for data retrieval:
This would probably mean moving to a more CQRSesque application
Well, you'd probably want to implement read-specific bits that make sense. I usually have my data access separated either by namespace and, at times, even in a separate assembly. I then use I{Aggregate}Query implementations that return the relevant bits of data in as simple a type as possible. However, it is quite possible to even map to a more complex read model that even has relations but it is still only a read model and is not concerned with any command processing. To this end the domain is never even aware of these classes.
I would not go with extending the repositories.
As i grow in my professional career i consider naming conventions very important. I noticed that people throw around controller, LibraryController, service, LibraryService, and provider, LibraryProvider and use them somewhat interchangeable. Is there any specific reasoning to use one vs the other?
If there are websites that have more concrete definitions that would be great.
In Java Spring, Spring Boot and also .NET you would have:
Repository: persist data in the database and perform SQL queries.
Service: contain most of the business logic
Controller: define REST endpoints, which contains as little logic as possible.
Conceptually this means that the WHAT (functional) is separated from the HOW (technical) as much as possible. The services try to stay technologically neutral. By contrast a controller only wants to define an external contract for communication. And finally the repository only wants to facilitate the access to the database.
Organizing your code in this way keeps the business logic short, clean and maintainable. Unfortunately it is not always easy to keep them separated. e.g. It is tempting to pollute or enrich your objects with meta-data in the form of decorators/annotations. (e.g. database column name and data type).
Some developers don't see harm in this and get away with it. Others keep their objects strictly separated and define multiple sets of objects.
The objects for the database are often referred to as "entities" or "models".
For a REST controller they are often referred to as DTOs which stands for data-transfer-object.
Having multiple objects means that you need Mappers to convert one type of object to another. Some frameworks can do this for you (e.g. MapStruct).
It would be easy to claim that strictness is always a good thing, but it can slow you down. It's okay to strike a balance.
In Node.js, the concepts of controllers and services are identical. However the term Repository isn't used very often. Instead, they would call that a Provider or sometimes they would just generalize Repositories as a kind of Service.
NestJS has stronger opinions about this (which can be a good thing). The naming conventions of NestJS (a Node.js framework) are strongly influenced by the naming conventions of Angular, which is of course a totally different kind of framework (front-end).
(For completeness, in Angular, a Provider is actually just something that can be injected as a dependency. Most providers are Services, but not necessarily. (It could be a Guard or even a Module. A Module would be more like a set of tools/driver or a connector.)
PS: Anyway, the usage of the term Module is a bit confusing because there also are "ES6 modules", which is a totally different thing.)
ES6 and more modern version of javascript (including typescript) are extremely powerful when it comes to (de)constructing objects. And that makes mappers unnecessary.
Having said that, most Node.js and Angular developers prefer to use typescript these days, which has more features than java or C# when it comes to defining types.
So, all these frameworks are influencing each other. And they pretty much all agree on what a Controller and a Service is. It's mostly the Repository and Provider words that have different meanings. It really is just a matter of conventions. If your framework has a convention, then stick to that. If there isn't one, then pick one yourself.
These terms can be synonymous with each other depending on context, which is why each framework or language creator is free to explicitly declare them as they see fit... think function/method/procedure or process/service, all pretty much the same thing but slight differences in different contexts.
Just going off formal English definitions:
Provider: a person or thing that provides something.
i.e. the provider does a service by controlling some process.
Service: the action of helping or doing work for someone.
i.e. the service is provided by controlling some work process.
Controller: a person or thing that directs or regulates something.
i.e. the controller directs something to provide a service.
These definitions are just listed to the explain how the developer looks at common English meanings when defining the terminology of a framework or language; it's not always one for one and the similarity in terminology actually provides the developer with a means of naming things that are very very similar but still are slightly different.
So for example, lets take AngularJS. Here the developers decided to use the term Controller to imply "HTML Controller", a Service to imply something like a "Quasi Class" since they are instantiated with the New keyword and a Provider is really a super-set of Service and Factory which is also similar. You could really program any application using any of them and really wouldn't lose anything much; though one might be a little better than another in certain context, I don't personally believe its worth the extra confusion... essentially they are all providers. The Angular people could have just defined factory, provider and service as a single term "provider" and then passed in modifiers for things like "static" and "void" like most languages and the exact same functionality could have been provided; this would have been my preference, however I've learned not to fight the conventions and terminology of the frameworks your working no matter how strongly you disagree.
Looking myself too for a more meaningful name than Provider :)
And found this useful post
Old dev here that stumbled on this. My opinion and how I’ve seen it used over the last 20 years shows that it varies by language but the Java C# crowd mostly uses them as follows.
A service handles business logic and deals with domain objects. You find services in controllers and other services.
A repository does NOT handle business logic, but instead acts like a pool of domain objects (with helper methods for finding or persisting them. Services often contain repositories. Repositories often contain a context and are responsible for mapping from infrastructure shaped data to domain shaped data if the definitions have drifted apart. Controllers also often contain repositories for crud endpoints.
A context handles infrastructure the domain owns. Most often this is a database, but context means that anything that touches this data does so through (in) this context. A context returns infrastructure shaped data. A repository often contains a context. Context directly in services is sometimes appropriate. Context in controller is a hard no.
A provider provides access to infrastructure some other app owns. Most often these are rest apis, but can also be kafka streams or rpc classes that read data from or push data to someone else. If the source of truth for some of your domain objects fields changes you will probably see a provider next to a context in your repository, and your repository handles insulating the rest of your code from that change. Providers that provide rpc functionality are often found in services. In micro services or gateways or vertical slice architecture you sometimes see providers directly in controllers.
One old guy’s opinion but I hope it helps.
I'm in the situation that I have to design and implement a system from the scratch. I have some questions about the architecture that I would like your comments and thoughts on.
Quick Info about the project: It's a data centric web application.
The application will be built on Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 with MS SQL SERVER 2008 database.
Requirement:
Rich UI and robust
Multi-device support (every browser and on every device)
Loosely coupled
Below is the architectural diagram I have built:
Briefing of the architecture
Presentation layer : HTML5/ASP.NET MVC + JQuery (Web application for multi-device support in first version)
Distributed Services : WCF (XML/JSON/JSONP)
Domain Layer(Business Layer) : All business logic
Data persistence (DAL Layer) : Entity Framework 4.0 with database first approach. POCO entities are generated and separated out using T4 template
Infrastructural Layer: Contains common libraries like POCO entities, Exception Handling, logging etc
My Concerns :
As application is to be built loosely coupled so in future if business requirement grows new modules can be easily plugged in without affecting the architecture.
So I thought of using the Repository pattern along with IoC and DI (can be Unity/Ninject/Sprint.NET or any other)
WCF with both XML and JSON support
Distributed Service Layer to place IoC & DI
Exception Handling & Logging using Enterprise Library 5.0
Looking for valuable comments and suggestions.
If I am doing anything wrong please put me in right direction.
I would suggest the following comment: right from the outset your approach will create tight coupling. This goes directly against your requirement #3 "Loosely coupled"
In your diagram you have defined two modules. Main module, and Module 2. I would guess that these two modules are quite distinct from each other. What I mean by this is that you could develop them completely separately and then plug them in, because the business concerns they address are different.
However, your current architectural approach:
Couples Main Module and Module 2 data into the same database
Couples Main Module and Module 2 business objects into the same business layer
Couples Main Module and Module 2 services into the same service layer
Couples the deployment and management of Main Module and Module 2
What may be worth considering: Build Main Module and Module 2 as separate vertical service stacks.
What I mean is Main Module and Module 2 become Main Service and Service 2
Each service has it's own database, it's own business layer, it's own services layer and it's own UI components.
However, this raises the concern: how can Main Service and Service 2 both work together to create my product?
To address this:
At the UI end, you stitch your front end together by using client-side code to load responses from the Main Service and Service 2 into one view.
At the back end you use publish subscribe messaging to allow Main Service to subscribe to events happening in Service 2 and vice versa.
This will result in an application built from the ground up on top of loosely coupled vertical service stacks, which maintain consistency by the asynchronous exchange of messages.
If you then need to add in a new module to your application, you can create a new service stack which supports the desired capability and wire it up with little or even no change needed to the other stacks (ideally the only reason to change existing stacks would be that they want to subscribe to events from the new module).
It's a very different approach to the one you're suggesting, but one which allows you to meet the requirement for loose coupling better, in my opninion.
How come that the architecture diagram doesn't use the domain layer for ASP.NET?
It seems to me that you may be overarchitecturing your application. Also, while it looks great to support 6 (or so) different front-end technologies, the effort to maintain all of them will be horrendous. I'd stick to one technology for the front-end - most likely HTML5 with client-side MVC or similar.
It makes sense that the WPF, WinForm etc UIs should call the WCF layer. I'm assuming that it's a business requirement to have multiple UIs, otherwise if you can only have one UI a responsive web UI is the most flexible choice.
However, I don't think your MVC UI needs to use the WCF layer. It could call the domain layer directly. That would be faster and remove a pointless layer.
Obviously, that would only work so long as you don't put any logic in your WCF layer. And the WCF layer really shouldn't have any logic in it.
You also state that you want to place IoC & DI in the Distributed Service Layer. That doesn't make much sense in terms of your MVC UI. You'll need to use DI in the MVC project so you can unit test the controllers.
Looking at your diagram I have a couple of points I'm not clear on:
Where is the domain model? Domain Core or the 'model' in the persistence layer?
How does the domain layer interact with the data access layer? The interaction is not as clear as between the service/application layer and domain layer.
What the difference between a repository in the domain layer and a repository in the data access layer? I usually make the distinction of having 'model repositories' in the domain layer which act upon domain model objects, and 'data gateways' in the data access layer which act upon DTO's.
What is domain core? Is this the implementation of the application layer transactions?
Does there need to be a further abstraction of the persistence framework? (EF)
In my SOA architecture, I have several WCF services.
All of my services need to access the database.
Should I create a specialized WCF service in charge of all the database access ?
Or is it ok if each of my services have their own database access ?
In one version, I have just one Entity layer instanced in one service, and all the other services depend on this service.
In the other one the Entity layer is duplicated in each of my services.
The main drawback of the first version is the coupling induced.
The drawback of the other version is the layer duplication, and maybe SOA bad practice ?
So, what do so think good people of Stack Overflow ?
Just my personal opinion, if you create a service for all database access then multiple services depend on ONE service which sort of defeats the point of SOA (i.e. Services are autonomous), as you have articulated. When you talk of layer duplication, if each service has its own data to deal with, is it really duplication. I realize that you probably have the same means of interacting with your relational databases or back from the OOA days you had a common class library that encapsulated data access for you. This is one of those things I struggle with myself, but I see no problem in each service having its own data layer. In fact, in Michele Bustamante's book (Chapter 1 - Page 8) - she actually depicts this and adds "Services encapsulate business components and data access". If you notice each service has a separate DALC layer. This is a good question.
It sounds as if you have several services but a single database.
If this is correct you do not really have a pure SOA architecture since the services are not independant. (There is nothing wrong with not having a pure SOA architecture, it can often be the correct choice)
Adding an extra WCF layer would just complicate and slow down your solution.
I would recommend that you create a single data access dll which contains all data access and is referenced by each WCF service. That way you do not have any duplication of code. Since you have a single database, any change in the database/datalayer would require a redeployment of all services in any case.
Why not just use a dependency injection framework, and, if they are currently using the same database, then just allow them to share the same code, and if these were in the same project then they would all use the same dll.
That way, later, if you need to put in some code that you don't want the others to share, you can make changes and just create a new DAO layer.
If there is a certain singleton that all will use, then you can just inject that in when you inject in the dao layer.
But, this will require that they use the same DI framework controller.
The real win that SOA brings is that it reduces the number of linkages between applications.
In the past I've worked with organizations who have done it a many different ways. Some data layers are integrated, and some are abstracted.
The way I've seen it most successfully done is when you create generic data-layer services for each app/database and you create the higher level services based on your newly created data layer.