I have User model which is aggregate. I also plan to create WorkingHours object. It's like every user will have his own working hours per day. There will be also graphical user interface separated from User for add/remove/update hours etc. I am thinking that whether should i put all operations into UserRepository related to WorkingHours or should i tread WorkingHours model as aggregate and create separated WorkingHoursRepository so then i could put property into User as id to WorkingHours object. Which option should i choose?
My thoughts are that to not make WorkingHours as aggregate because every set of working hours belong to specific user which makes it if i am thinking right dependent on User and cannot live without it. My only thought about to make it aggregate and create separate repository is due to have cleaner code means not to put all CRUD etc in same repository but i suppose it's should be not the thing to separate it therefore to me the only way is to WorkingHours as value object and not aggregate and use UserRepository for it.
You design your Domain Model based on your business requirements and not on how it needs to be saved.
In this scenario, if Working Hours can be only manipulated within the User domain and if you think User is the only aggregate required, then Working Hours should not be made aggregate. That said, it does not stop you save your data in a clean manner in your data store. Strategy to store your data also depends a lot on your type of data store.
For example, if you are using SQL and your data is stored in multiple tables then you can Commit or Rollback the entire transaction. How you implement it is not tied to DDD as long as you are adhering to the concept that the aggregates should only be updated via the root entity.
If you are using a No-SQL database like Cosmos DB you can choose to load or save the entire document. In that case, you would be only dealing with the User repository.
Hope this helps.
Related
I'm trying to design a system where an administrator will have to approve changes to the data and other various administrative tasks -- add a user, add an admin etc.
My idea is to have a notification table that contains these notifications, but the problem is that a notification can be any of the previously mentioned types, ie it's data is stored in one of many tables. Here is a picture to describe my current plan -- note I'm sure that it's not a proper ER diagram.
full_screen
Also, the data goes into a pending table, that reflects the table it will eventually wind up in, provided the data is approved -- it's a staging ground of sorts. So, a pending_user is a user that is not in the user table. And as you can see the user table, amongst others, is not shown here, but one can use their imagination.
I'm concerned that the multiple null values in the pending table will have adverse effects that I'm not totally aware of, such as increased space usage and possibly increase query time. Also, I'm not sure how I'll implement the retrieval of these notifications. My naive approach is to select the first X notifications, analyze the rows to find the non-null column, retrieve the appropriate data and then load all the data in a response.
Is there a more straight forward pattern for this type of problem?
Thanks in advance for any help.
I think, the traditional way is to provide various levels of access/read/write rights to users. These access rights define what actions a user can and can't perform. In this traditional approach if a user has access to a certain function, he can do it without further approval.
Also, traditionally there are some kind of audit logs that contain a trace of all important changes to the data. With such logs it would be possible to know who made a change (and when).
If you need to build a two-stage system, where a change has to go through an approval, I'd add a flag column to each important table that would indicate that values in the given row are not final and have to be approved. The table would store all historical changes to the data and with the help of this flag the system would know which variant is the latest approved version and which variant is pending and waiting for approval.
I would not try to make a single universal table that would hold data related to changes in many different tables. Each table is different and approval process for each table is likely to be different. I doubt that you'll have more than a dozen entities that are important enough to go through this approval process.
I'm working on creating an application best described as a CRM. There is a relatively complex table structure, and I'm thinking about allowing users to do a fair bit of customization (adding fields and the like). One concern is that I will be reaching a certain level of scale almost immediately. We have about 50,000 individual users who will be coming online within about nine months of launch. So I want to build to last.
I'm thinking about two and maybe even three options.
One table set with a userID column on everything and with a custom attributes table created by creating a table which indexes custom attributes, then another table which has their values, which can then be joined to the existing contact records for the user. -- From what I've read, this seems like the right option, but I keep feeling like it's not. It seems like once these tables start reaching the millions of records searching for just one users records in every query is going to become a database hog.
For each user account recreate the table set, preened with a unique identifier (the userID for example.) Then rather than using a WHERE userID=? everywhere I can use a FROM ?_contacts. For attributes I could then have a custom attributes table where users could add additional columns for custom attributes. -- This feels like the simplest way to go, though, of course when I decide to change the database structure there would be a migration from hell.
The third option, which I'm pretty confident is wrong, but for that reason alone I can not rule out, is that a new database should be created for each user with all the requisite tables.
Am I crazy? Is option one really the best?
The first method is the best. Create individual userId's and then you can assign specific roles to them. A database retrieval time indeed depends on the number of records too. But, there is a trade-off where you can write efficient sql queries to fetch data. Well, according to this site, you will probably won't run out of memory or run into concurrency issues, because with a good server, the performance ought to be good, provided that you are efficient in writing queries.
If you recreate table sets, you will just end up creating lots of tables and can make the indexing slow which is a bad practice. Whereas if you opt of relational database scheme rather than an ordinary database scheme, and normalize the database and datatables for improving efficiency.
Creating a new database for each and every user, just sums up the complexity from both the above statements resulting in a shabby and disorganized database access. Because, if you decide to run individual instances of databases for every single user, you would just end up consuming your servers physical resources like RAM and CPU usage which will affect the service quality of all the other users.
Take up option 1. Assign separate userIds and assign them roles and privileges where needed. That is more efficient than the other two methods.
How can i limit on table maintenance fetching data base on authorization?
For instance the user only can view plant/storage location based on the authorization object because sometimes the user gets confused of too many plants are irrelevant for him.
In the table maintenance generator for your table or view, choose Environment -> Modification -> Events from the menu.
Here you have the option to extend the logic of the table maintenance generator at particular points during the execution.
You are able to define your own logic; one promising event might be 'AA' (Instead of the standard data read routine). You should be able to change the logic for reading data to perform a custom authority check that will allow users to see only records for which they have access.
Here is a document on SDN relating to the topic of using the table maintenance events: https://wiki.scn.sap.com/wiki/display/ABAP/TABLE+MAINTENANCE+GENERATOR+and+ITS+EVENTS
I am doing short-term contract work for a company that is trying to implement a check-in/check-out type of workflow for their database records.
Here's how it should work...
A user creates a new entity within the application. There are about 20 related tables that will be populated in addition to the main entity table.
Once the entity is created the user will mark it as the master.
Another user can make changes to the master only by "checking out" the entity. Multiple users can checkout the entity at the same time.
Once the user has made all the necessary changes to the entity, they put it in a "needs approval" status.
After an authorized user reviews the entity, they can promote it to master which will put the original record in a tombstoned status.
The way they are currently accomplishing the "check out" is by duplicating the entity records in all the tables. The primary keys include EntityID + EntityDate, so they duplicate the entity records in all related tables with the same EntityID and an updated EntityDate and give it a status of "checked out". When the record is put into the next state (needs approval), the duplication occurs again. Eventually it will be promoted to master at which time the final record is marked as master and the original master is marked as dead.
This design seems hideous to me, but I understand why they've done it. When someone looks up an entity from within the application, they need to see all current versions of that entity. This was a very straightforward way for making that happen. But the fact that they are representing the same entity multiple times within the same table(s) doesn't sit well with me, nor does the fact that they are duplicating EVERY piece of data rather than only storing deltas.
I would be interested in hearing your reaction to the design, whether positive or negative.
I would also be grateful for any resoures you can point me to that might be useful for seeing how someone else has implemented such a mechanism.
Thanks!
Darvis
I've worked on a system like this which supported the static data for trading at a very large bank. The static data in this case is things like the details of counterparties, standard settlement instructions, currencies (not FX rates) etc. Every entity in the database was versioned, and changing an entity involved creating a new version, changing that version and getting the version approved. They did not however let multiple people create versions at the same time.
This lead to a horribly complex database, with every join having to take version and approval state into account. In fact the software I wrote for them was middleware that abstracted this complex, versioned data into something that end-user applications could actually use.
The only thing that could have made it any worse was to store deltas instead of complete versioned objects. So the point of this answer is - don't try to implement deltas!
This looks like an example of a temporal database schema -- Often, in cases like that, there is a distinction made between an entity's key (EntityID, in your case) and the row primary key in the database (in your case, {EntityID, date}, but often a simple integer). You have to accept that the same entity is represented multiple times in the database, at different points in its history. Every database row still has a unique ID; it's just that your database is tracking versions, rather than entities.
You can manage data like that, and it can be very good at tracking changes to data, and providing accountability, if that is required, but it makes all of your queries quite a bit more complex.
You can read about the rationale behind, and design of temporal databases on Wikipedia
You are describing a homebrew Content Management System which was probably hacked together over time, is - for the reasons you state - redundant and inefficient, and given the nature of such systems in firms is unlikely to be displaced without massive organizational effort.
I am trying to decide on the best method for audit logging within my application. The main reason for the log is reporting the sequence of events (changes).
I have a hierarchy of Objects, I need to create reports when something changes on any part of that hierarchy, at a latter date.
I think that I have three options:
Have a log for each table and therefore matching the hierarchy of objects then creating a view for the report.
Flatten the hierarchy and de-normalise the table, making reporting easier - simple select statement.
Have one log table and have a record for each change making reporting harder but more flexible to changes.
I am currently leaning towards option 1.
I have to talk to this subject even though it's old.
It is usually a poor idea to have only one audit table as you will create locking problems in the database as everything hits that table. Use separate audit tables for each table.
It is also a poor idea to have the application do the auditing. Audit must be done at the database level or you risk losing some of the information. Data does not change only from applications in most databases; no one is going to change the prices of all their products one at a time from the user interface when you need a 10% increase to all 10,000,000 of them. Auditing should capture all changes not just some of them. This should be done in a trigger in most databases (SQL server 2008 has a built in auditing function). Some of the worst potential possible changes (employees committing fraud or wanting to maliciously destroy data) also are frequently from places other than the application especially if you allow table level access to users (Which you should not do in any financial database or one that contains personal information). Auditing from the application won't catch this. Developers often forget that in protecting their data, outside sources are not the only threat.
An audit log is basically a chronological list of events that occurred, who performed these events, and what the events were.
I think a flat view would be better as it can be easily ordered and queried. So I'm leaning more towards your option #2/#3.
Include things like the transaction type, the time, the user id, a description of what's changed, and other pertinent information related to your product.
You can also add things to your product over time and you won't need to continually modify your audit log module.
If it's for auditing purposes I'd use a true append-only medium rather than a table/tables in the same db.
You suggest it's for change history purposes - in which case I would restructure your application/db to record the actual events in the first place rather than just the current state.
I would go with (2) and (3): create a single table for all Audit entries.
A flat view is good, provided the extra work flattening does not impact performance.
You could look into an AOP framework to help with this. It would allow you to inject logging functionality at the beginning or end of any/all methods. If you go down this road, it might help define what would make sense for storing the log data.