I am using strongly typed ids in my domain model, mostly following the guidance from Andrew Lock at:
https://andrewlock.net/using-strongly-typed-entity-ids-to-avoid-primitive-obsession-part-1/
These ids, e.g. ProductId, CustomerId, etc. are declared in the Domain Model.
My question is about exposing these to consumers of the Application layer. At the moment, an API controller could create a Command to send to the Application layer. These commands also needs to use Ids. My current implementation in the Command objects is use the primitive type, Guid, and then create a Strongly Typed Id when calling methods on the Domain Model.
However, it makes sense to extend the control offered by using strongly typed ids to communication between the API Controller and the Application Layer. But, I do not want my API Controllers to have a reference to the Domain Model (which is where the Strongly Typed Ids are declared at the moment).
How to go about this?
Declare a similar set of Strongly Typed Ids from the Application Layer. But this would still need a translation between the Application declaration and the Domain Model declaration before calling methods in the Domain.
Move the declaration of Ids into a 'public' module that both the API and Domain Model can reference. But this would mean some leakage of Domain Model dependencies to the API Controller dependencies and any change in my Domain Model approach may impact the API Controllers, which is not desirable.
The ask seems reasonable, but neither of the above solutions feel optimal. Any thoughts?
Having reviewed Vaughn Vernon's book "Implementing Domain-Driven Design":
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Implementing-Domain-Driven-Design-Vaughn-Vernon/dp/0321834577/ref=asc_df_0321834577/
I have followed the advice on page 580, which is basically "be pragmatic".
Specifically,
For Ids and any other value object that I consider pretty 'fixed' I have chosen to use a shared kernel that API, Application and Domain layers can use (i.e. option 2 from my question).
For other, potentially more complex, value objects that may contain additional business logic specific to the Domain and may be more volatile in response to business change, then I am using option 1 from my question and creating a slimmed down (DTO) version for exposing from the Application and performing mapping from those to the Domain Model versions.
Related
Let's say I have an class to model a city. Its characteristics are the following:
It has only two properties "name" and "population", both private, that are set in the constructor.
It has getters for these properties, but not setters.
I don't want any user of this class to set the properties, I want them to use a public .edit() method.
This method needs opens up a form to input the new name of the city and population, i.e.: a view. Then, if I have a view, I would like to implement the MVC pattern, so the idea would be that the controller receives the .edit() call, renders the view, retrieves the data back, and sends it to the view so that it changes its state.
But, if I do so, I have to change the properties of the city model from private to public. So, if any user instantiates my class, she/he can directly change the properties.
So, the philosophical question: Isn't that breaking the encapsulation?
EDIT Just to make it more explicit:
This city_instance.edit() method should be the only way to mutate the object.
Besides, I see that part of my problems comes from the misunderstanding that a model is an object (you can read that on php mvc frameworks), when it is actually a different abstraction, it's a layer that groups the business logic (domain objects + I guess more things)
Disclaimer: I don't really understand where are you proposing the .edit() method to be implemented, so it would help if you could clarify that a little bit there.
The first thing to consider here is that in the bulleted list of your question you seem to imply that a City instance acts like an immutable object: it takes its instance variables in the constructor and doesn't allow anybody in the outside to change them. However, you later state that you actually want to create a way to visually edit a City instance. This two requirements are clearly going to create some tension, since they are kind of opposites.
If you go the MVC approach, by separating the view from the model you have two main choices:
Treat your City objects as immutable and, instead of editing an instance when the values are changed in the form, throw away the original object and create a new one.
Provide a way to mutate an existing City instance.
The first approach keeps your model intact if you actually consider a City as an immutable object. For the second one there are many different ways to go:
The most standard way is to provide, in the City class, a mutator. This can have the shape of independent setters for each property or a common message (I think this is the .edit() method you mentioned) to alter many properties at once by taking an array. Note that here you don't take a form object as a parameter, since models should not be aware of the views. If you want your view to take note of internal changes in the model, you use the Observer pattern.
Use "friend" classes for controllers. Some languages allow for friend classes to access an object's internals. In this case you could create a controller that is a friend class of your model that can make the connection between the model and the view without having to add mutators to your model.
Use reflection to accomplish something similar to the friend classes.
The first of this three approaches is the only language agnostic choice. Whether that breaks encapsulation or not is kind of difficult to say, since the requirements themselves would be conflicting (It would basically mean wanting to have a model separated from the view that can be altered by the user but that doesn't allow the model itself to be changed for the outside). I would however agree that separating the model from the view promotes having an explicit mutation mechanism if you want mutable instances.
HTH
NOTE: I'm referring to MVC as it applies to Web applications. MVC can apply to many kinds of apps, and it's implemented in many kinds of ways, so it's really hard to say MVC does or does not do any specific thing unless you are talking strictly about something defined by the pattern, and not a particular implementation.
I think you have a very specific view of what "encapsulation" is, and that view does not agree with the textbook definition of encapsulation, nor does it agree with the common usage of it. There is no definition of "Encapsulation" I can find that requires that there be no setters. In fact, since Setters are in and of themselves methods that be used to "edit" the object, it's kind of a silly argument.
From the Wikipedia entry (note where it says "like getter and setter"):
In general, encapsulation is one of the four fundamentals of OOP (object-oriented programming). Encapsulation is to hide the variables or something inside a class, preventing unauthorized parties to use. So the public methods like getter and setter access it and the other classes call these methods for accessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(object-oriented_programming)
Now, that's not to say that MVC doesn't break encapsulation, I'm just saying that your idea of what Encapsulation is is very specific and not particularly canonical.
Certainly, there are a number of problems that using Getters and Setters can cause, such as returning lists that you can then change directly outside of the object itself. You have to be careful (if you care) to keep your data hidden. You can also replace a collection with another collection, which is probably not what you intend.
The Law of Demeter is more relevant here than anything else.
But all of this is really just a red herring anyways. MVC is only about the GUI, and the GUI should be as simple as possible. It should have almost no logic in either the view or the controller. You should be using simple view models to deserialize your form data into a simple structure, which can the be used to apply to any business architecture you like (if you don't want setters, then create your business layer with objects that don't use setters and use mutattors.).
There is little need for complex architecture in the UI layer. The UI layer is more of a boundary and gateway that translates the flat form and command nature of HTTP to whatever business object model you choose. As such, it's not going to be purely OO at the UI level, because HTTP isn't.
This is called an Impedance Mismatch, which is often associated with ORM's, because Object models do not map easily to relational models. The same is true of HTTP to Business objects. You can think of MVC as a corollary to an ORM in that respect.
I have a web client that calls my WCF business service layer, which in turn, calls external WCF services to get the actual data. Initially, I thought I would use DTOs and have separate business entities in the different layers... but I'm finding that the trivial examples advocating for DTOs, to be, well, trivial. I see too much duplicate code and not much benefit.
Consider my Domain:
Example Domain
I have a single UI screen (Asp.net MVC View) that shows a patient's list of medications, the adverse reactions (between medications), and any clinical conditions (like depression or hypertension) the patient may have. My domain model starts at the top level with:
MedicationRecord
List<MedicationProfile> MedicationProfiles
List<AdverseReactions> Reactions
List<ClinicalConditions> ClinicalConditions
MedicationProfile is itself a complex object
string Name
decimal Dosage
Practitioner prescriber
Practioner is itself a complex object
string FirstName
string LastName
PractionerType PractionerType
PractionerId Id
Address Address
etc.
Further, when making the WCF requests, we have a request/response object, e.g.
MedicationRecordResponse
MedicationRecord MedicationRecord
List<ClientMessage> Messages
QueryStatus Status
and again, these other objects are complex objects
(and further, complicates matter is that they exist in a different, common shared namespace)
At this point, my inclination is that the MedicationRecordResponse is my DTO. But in pure DataContracts and DTO and separation of design, am I suppose to do this?
MedicationRecordResponseDto
MedicationRecordDto
List<ClientMessageDto>
QueryStatusDto
and that would mean I then need to do
MedicationProfileDto
PractitionerDto
PractitionerTypeDto
AddressDto
etc.
Because I have show almost all the information on the screen, I am effectively creating 1 DTO for each domain object I have.
My question is -- what would you do? Would you go ahead and create all these DTOs? Or would you just share your domain model in a separate assembly?
Here's some reading from other questions that seemed relevant:
WCF contract know the domain
Alternatives for Translation Layer in SOA: WCF
SOA Question: Exposing Entities
Take a look on excellent articles
Why You Shouldn’t Expose Your Entities Through Your Services
DTO’s Should Transfer Data, Not Entities
above links don't work, looks like a domain issue (I hope it'll be fix), here is the source:
DTO’s Should Transfer Data, Not Entities
Why You Shouldn’t Expose Your Entities Through Your Services
I've always had an aversion to the duplicate class hierarchy resulting from DTOs. It seems to be a flagrant violation of the DRY principle. However, upon closer examination, the DTO and the corresponding entity or entities serve different roles. If you are indeed applying domain-driven design then your domain entities consist of not only data but behavior. By contrast, DTOs only carry data and serve as an adapter between your domain and WCF. All of this makes even more sense in the context of a hexagonal architecture also called ports and adapters as well as the onion architecture. Your domain is at the core and WCF is a port which exposes your domain externally. A DTO is part of how WCF functions and if you agree that it is a necessary evil your problem shifts from attempting to eliminate them to embracing them and instead focusing on how to facilitate the mapping between DTOs and domain objects. A popular solution is AutoMapper which reduces the amount of boiler plate mapping code you need to write. Aside from the drawbacks, DTOs also bring a lot of benefits. One is that they furnish a buffer between your domain entities and the outside world. This can be of great help in refactoring because you can keep your core domain very well encapsulated. Another benefit is that you can design your DTOs such that they fulfill requirements of the service consumer, requirements which may not always be in full alignment with the shape of your domain objects.
Personally, I don’t like using MessageContract as entities. Unfortunately, I have an existing WCF service that use MessageContract as entities – i.e. data is filled into the MessageContract directly in the data access layer. There is no translation layer involved.
I have an existing C# console application client using this service. Now, I have a new requirement. I need to add a new field in the entity. This is not needed by the client. The new field is only for the internal calculations in the service. I had to add a new property named “LDAPUserID” in the MessageContract which also act as a entity.
This may or may not break the client depending on whether the client support Lax Versioning. Refer Service Versioning.
It is easy to mistakenly believe that adding a new member will not break existing clients. If you are unsure that all clients can handle lax versioning, the recommendation is to use the strict versioning guidelines and treat data contracts as immutable.
With this experience, I believe it is not good to use MessageContract as entities.
Also, refer MSDN - Service Layer Guidelines
Design transformation objects that translate between business entities and data contracts.
References:
How do I serialize all properties of an NHibernate-mapped object?
Expose object from class library using WCF
Serialize subset of properties only
We are taking a long, hard look at our (Java) web application patterns. In the past, we've suffered from an overly anaemic object model and overly procedural separation between controllers, services and DAOs, with simple value objects (basically just bags of data) travelling between them. We've used declarative (XML) managed ORM (Hibernate) for persistence. All entity management has taken place in DAOs.
In trying to move to a richer domain model, we find ourselves struggling with how best to design the persistence layer. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Domain Driven Design patterns. However, I'd like some advice.
First, the things I'm more confident about:
We'll have "thin" controllers at the front that deal only with HTTP and HTML - processing forms, validation, UI logic.
We'll have a layer of stateless business logic services that implements common algorithms or logic, unaware of the UI, but very much aware of (and delegating to) the domain model.
We'll have a richer domain model which contains state, relationships, and logic inherent to the objects in that domain model.
The question comes around persistence. Previously, our services would be injected (via Spring) with DAOs, and would use DAO methods like find() and save() to perform persistence. However, a richer domain model would seem to imply that objects should know how to save and delete themselves, and perhaps that higher level services should know how to locate (query for) domain objects.
Here, a few questions and uncertainties arise:
Do we want to inject DAOs into domain objects, so that they can do "this.someDao.save(this)" in a save() method? This is a little awkward since domain objects are not singletons, so we'll need factories or post-construction setting of DAOs. When loading entities from a database, this gets messy. I know Spring AOP can be used for this, but I couldn't get it to work (using Play! framework, another line of experimentation) and it seems quite messy and magical.
Do we instead keep DAOs (repositories?) completely separate, on par with stateless business logic services? This can make some sense, but it means that if "save" or "delete" are inherent operations of a domain object, the domain object can't express those.
Do we just dispense with DAOs entirely and use JPA to let entities manage themselves.
Herein lies the next subtlety: It's quite convenient to map entities using JPA. The Play! framework gives us a nice entity base class, too, with operations like save() and delete(). However, this means that our domain model entities are quite closely tied to the database structure, and we are passing objects around with a large amount of persistence logic, perhaps all the way up to the view layer. If nothing else, this will make the domain model less re-usable in other contexts.
If we want to avoid this, then we'd need some kind of mapping DAO - either using simple JDBC (or at least Spring's JdbcTemplate), or using a parallel hierarchy of database entities and "business" entities, with DAOs forever copying information from one hierarchy to another.
What is the appropriate design choice here?
Martin
Your questions and doubts ring an interesting alarm here, I think you went a bit too far in your interpretation of a "rich domain model". Richness doesn't go as far as implying that persistence logic must be handled by the domain objects, in other words, no, they shouldn't know how to save and delete themselves (at least not explicitely, though Hibernate actually adds some persistence logic transparently). This is often referred to as persistence ignorance.
I suggest that you keep the existing DAO injection system (a nice thing to have for unit testing) and leave the persistence layer as is while trying to move some business logic to your entities where it's fit. A good starting point to do that is to identify Aggregates and establish your Aggregate Roots. They'll often contain more business logic than the other entities.
However, this is not to say domain objects should contain all logic (especially not logic needed by many other objects across the application, which often belongs in Services).
I am not a Java expert, but I use NHibernate in my .NET code so my experience should be directly translatable to the Java world.
When using ORM (like Hibernate you mentioned) to build Domain-Driven Design application, one of good (I won't say best) practices is to create so-called application services between the UI and the Domain. They are similar to stateless business objects you mentioned, but should contain almost no logic. They should look like this:
public void SayHello(int id, String helloString)
{
SomeDomainObject target = domainObjectRepository.findById(id); //This uses Hibernate to load the object.
target.sayHello(helloString); //There is a single domain object method invocation per application service method.
domainObjectRepository.Save(target); //This one is optional. Hibernate should already know that this object needs saving because it tracks changes.
}
Any changes to objects contained by DomainObject (also adding objects to collections) will be handled by Hibernate.
You will also need some kind of AOP to intercept application service method invocations and create Hibernate's session before the method executes and save changes after method finishes with no exceptions.
There is a really good sample how to do DDD in Java here. It is based on the sample problem from Eric Evans' 'Blue Book'. The application logic class sample code is here.
Take this simple, contrived example:
UserRepository.GetAllUsers();
UserRepository.GetUserById();
Inevitably, I will have more complex "queries", such as:
//returns users where active=true, deleted=false, and confirmed = true
GetActiveUsers();
I'm having trouble determining where the responsibility of the repository ends. GetActiveUsers() represents a simple "query". Does it belong in the repository?
How about something that involves a bit of logic, such as:
//activate the user, set the activationCode to "used", etc.
ActivateUser(string activationCode);
Repositories are responsible for the application-specific handling of sets of objects. This naturally covers queries as well as set modifications (insert/delete).
ActivateUser operates on a single object. That object needs to be retrieved, then modified. The repository is responsible for retrieving the object from the set; another class would be responsible for invoking the query and using the object.
These are all excellent questions to be asking. Being able to determine which of these you should use comes down to your experience and the problem you are working on.
I would suggest reading a book such as Fowler's patterns of enterprise architecture. In this book he discusses the patterns you mention. Most importantly though he assigns each pattern a responsibility. For instance domain logic can be put in either the Service or Domain layers. There are pros and cons associated with each.
If I decide to use a Service layer I assign the layer the role of handling Transactions and Authorization. I like to keep it 'thin' and have no domain logic in there. It becomes an API for my application. I keep all business logic with the domain objects. This includes algorithms and validation for the object. The repository retrieves and persists the domain objects. This may be a one to one mapping between database columns and domain properties for simple systems.
I think GetAtcitveUsers is ok for the Repository. You wouldnt want to retrieve all users from the database and figure out which ones are active in the application as this would lead to poor performance. If ActivateUser has business logic as you suggest, then that logic belongs in the domain object. Persisting the change is the responsibility of the Repository layer.
Hope this helps.
When building DDD projects I like to differentiate two responsibilities: a Repository and a Finder.
A Repository is responsible for storing aggregate roots and for retrieving them, but only for usage in command processing. By command processing I meant executing any action a user invoked.
A Finder is responsible for querying domain objects for purposes of UI, like grid views and details views.
I don't consider finders to be a part of domain model. The particular IXxxFinder interfaces are placed in presentation layer, not in the domain layer. Implementation of both IXxxRepository and IXxxFinder are placed in data access layer, possibly even in the same class.
What functionality do you think should be built into a persistable business object at bare minimum?
For example:
validation
a way to compare to another object of the same type
undo capability (the ability to roll-back changes)
The functionality dictated by the domain & business.
Read Domain Driven Design.
A persistable business object should consist of the following:
Data
New
Save
Delete
Serialization
Deserialization
Often, you'll abstract the functionality to retrieve them into a repository that supports:
GetByID
GetAll
GetByXYZCriteria
You could also wrap this type of functionality into collection classes (e.g. BusinessObjectTypeCollection), however there's a lot of movement towards using the Repository Pattern in Domain Driven Design to provide these type of accessors (e.g. InvoicingRepository.GetAllCustomers, InvoicingRepository.GetAllInvoices).
You could put the business rules in the New, Save, Update, Delete ... but sometimes you could have an external business rules engine that you pass off the objects to.
This is just one piece of an answer, but I would say that you need a way to get to all objects with which this object has a relationship. In the beginning you may try to be smart and only include one-way navigability for some relationships, but I have found that this is usually more trouble than it's worth.
All persistent frameworks also include finders, ways to do cascading deletes... sorts....
Once you start modeling, all business objects should know how to manage themselves. Whenever you find another class referring TO your business object too much, it's usually time to push that behavior into the business object itself.
Of the three things noted in the question, I would say that validation is the only one that is truly required. The others depend on the overall archetecture of the application.
Also, the business rules should be in the business objects.
Whether an object should do its own serialization is an interesting question. I have had great success in the past by having each object handle its own serialization, but I can also see merit in having a serialization module load and save the business objects just the same way as the GUI writes to and reads from the objects. Then your validation will protect against errors in the database or files too.
I can't think of anything else that is required in general.