What is the purpose of having the Id of an entity defined as custom type rather than as primitive, as database driven programmers usually do?
First of all, Domain entities must be designed independant from storage (other question is that sometimes it's impossible, but let's assume this). In real world (or in domain world) entites often has complex identity like first name, last name and password number. It's not a primitive. People don't have an int Id from thier birth, but they have names and other documents. So, you need to translate it to your domain model. Of couse, sometimes, you don't have such complex identity and you can replace it with some more simple, like int number. But in both cases your choice shouldn't be based on database if you try to use DDD (it's difficult, yes). And later, you create mapping from domain entities to tables or other storage.
Related
I have a situation in which the ideal relationship, I believe, would involve Value Object Inheritance. This is unfortunately not supported in NHibernate so any solution I come up with will be less than perfect.
Let’s say that:
“Item” entities have a “Location” that can be in one of multiple different formats.
These formats are completely different with no overlapping fields.
We will deal with each Location in the format that is provided in the data with no attempt to convert from one format to another.
Each Item has exactly one Location.
“SpecialItem” is a subtype of Item, however, that is unique in that it has exactly two Locations.
“Group” entities aggregate Items.
“LocationGroup” is as subtype of Group.
LocationGroup also has a single Location that can be in any of the formats as described above.
Although I’m interested in Items by Group, I’m also interested in being able to find all items with the same Location, regardless of which group they are in.
I apologize for the number of stipulations listed above, but I’m afraid that simplifying it any further wouldn’t really reflect the difficulties of the situation. Here is how the above could be diagrammed:
Mapping Dilemma Diagram http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/592ad48b1a.jpg
Analyzing the above, I make the following observations:
I treat Locations polymorphically, referring to the supertype rather than the subtype.
Logically, Locations should be “Value Objects” rather than entities since it is meaningless to differentiate between two Location objects that have all the same values. Thus equality between Locations should be based on field comparisons, not identifiers. Also, value objects should be immutable and shared references should not be allowed.
Using NHibernate (or Hibernate) one would typically map value objects using the “component” keyword which would cause the fields of the class to be mapped directly into the database table that represents the containing class. Put another way, there would not be a separate “Locations” table in the database (and Locations would therefore have no identifiers).
NHibernate (or Hibernate) do not currently support inheritance for value objects.
My choices as I see them are:
Ignore the fact that Locations should be value objects and map them as entities. This would take care of the inheritance mapping issues since NHibernate supports entity inheritance. The downside is that I then have to deal with aliasing issues. (Meaning that if multiple objects share a reference to the same Location, then changing values for one object’s Location would cause the location to change for other objects that share the reference to the same Location record.) I want to avoid this if possible. Another downside is that entities are typically compared by their IDs. This would mean that two Location objects would be considered not equal even if the values of all their fields are the same. This would be invalid and unacceptable from the business perspective.
Flatten Locations into a single class so that there are no longer inheritance relationships for Locations. This would allow Locations to be treated as value objects which could easily be handled by using “component” mapping in NHibernate. The downside in this case would be that the domain model becomes weaker, more fragile and less maintainable.
Do some “creative” mapping in the hbm files in order to force Location fields to be mapped into the containing entities’ tables without using the “component” keyword. This approach is described by Colin Jack here. My situation is more complicated than the one he describes due to the fact that SpecialItem has a second Location and the fact that a different entity, LocatedGroup, also has Locations. I could probably get it to work, but the mappings would be non-intuitive and therefore hard to understand and maintain by other developers in the future. Also, I suspect that these tricky mappings would likely not be possible using Fluent NHibernate so I would use the advantages of using that tool, at least in that situation.
Surely others out there have run into similar situations. I’m hoping someone who has “been there, done that” can share some wisdom. :-)
So here’s the question… Which approach should be preferred in this situation? Why? Is there a better option that I haven't considered?
Just a few observations / questions...
if the different location formats have no overlapping fields, what is the commonality in them which would make them candidates for a subclass hierarchy? Can you actually define a common interface for the base class Location?
is a TypeALocation comparable with a TypeBLocation?
are the two locations in SpecialItem of the same type, or can they be mixed?
can an item change its location to a different type runtime?
As you state above, value objects can't be polymorphic. Based on what you describe, I don't see how can you treat locations polymorphically.
Update If you can't define a common base interface for your location types, it is very awkward to try and treat them polymorphically, regardless of whether there is ORM or not. Taking your example below, even for accessing any information about the actual location I live, you needed to downcast it to either a street address or a lat/long coordinate. Polimorphism is meant exactly to avoid the need for such downcasts (and switches on type fields, etc.)!
Looking at the options you describe above, with all this taken into account:
Just as you, I don't like it either (hardly suprising).
Can be a viable option if there aren't many location types and you can be reasonably sure that you have implemented all the types ever needed. In this case the domain class would practically be the analog of a C union, with a type field. It is a bit awkward to use, but the polymorphic attempt would be even more awkward IMHO.
It is definitely an interesting idea which I will probably experiment with in a pet project sometime, but I am not quite sure I would like such tricks in my production code. I guess it could also be done with a custom mapping type which would map your component to a specific subclass. But then again, we're back trying to fit these incompatible types into a type hierarchy... the only good reason to try this path is if there are many location types and/or new types may appear in the future.
I have models corresponding to database tables. For example, the House class has "color", "price", "square_feet", "real_estate_agent_id" columns.
It is very common for me to want to display the agent name when I display information about a house. As a result, my House class has the following fields:
class House {
String color;
Double price;
Integer squareFeet;
Integer realEstateAgentId;
String realEstateAgentName;
}
I've been referring to realEstateAgentName as a virtual field, as it is pulled from a foreign table (join on real_estate_agent_id).
This doesn't feel right to me, as it mixes actual database columns with foreign object's properties. But it's quick, and in many cases it really works out well.
Other times I find myself doing something like this:
class House {
String color;
Double price;
Integer squareFeet;
Integer realEstateAgentId;
RealEstateAgent realEstateAgent;
}
As you can see, I'm storing the actual object corresponding to the ID that is stored in the House table.
I tend to make the decision to store the entire object vs some key information associated with the ID (e.g. Name) depending on the likelihood I see of needing to access other information about the object it represents.
I have a few questions:
Of the two methods I've been mixing and matching, which is best? I'm leaning towards storing the id + the object, rather than pulling out just the properties from the foreign object that I think I may need. Of the two, this seems more "correct." But it's not perfect, because in many cases I don't have any need to hydrate the entire foreign object, and doing so would cause undue waste of resources or would not be feasible because of the amount of data or the number of joins that would be required when I don't have any use for all the info being brought in. Given that this is the case, it seems like a poor design choice because I will have lots of null fields that aren't really null in my database, but are so in memory simply because there was no need to populate them -- now I have to keep track of which ones I populated.
But is it best practice to store an ID alongside the object it represents? Should I even be storing the object as a property, or should it live externally in some map, with the ID being the key?
In an Object world it seems like the ID shouldn't even be stored as a property, with the foreign Object it represents being the logical replacement. But with everything being tightly coupled with a relational database it doesn't seem very feasible.
Is this frustrating impurity of my models/classes something I just have to live with, or are there patterns out there that address this by having some kind of fork or parent/child subclassing going on where one is a "pure" object while the other is flat like the database?
EDIT: I am looking for design suggestions here rather than specific ORM frameworks like Hibernate/nHibernate/etc. The particular language I'm working in does not have an ORM solution for my language version that I am satisfied with, and the examples were Java-esque but that's not what my source code is written in.
I can tell about Hibernate, because this is the ORM tool I am most familiar with. I believe that other ORM tools also support similar behaviour to some extent.
Hibernate solves your problem with lazy loading. You add your agent as a property to the house, and by default, when the house object is loaded, the agent is represented by a proxy object generated by Hibernate, which contains only the ID. If you query some other property of the agent, Hibernate loads the full object in the background:
class House {
String color;
Double price;
Integer squareFeet;
RealEstateAgent realEstateAgent;
// getters, setters,...
}
House house = (House) session.load(House.class, new Long(123));
// at this point, house refers to a proxy object created by Hibernate
// in the background - no house or agent data has been loaded from DB
house.getId();
// house still refers to the proxy object
RealEstateAgent agent = house.getRealEstateAgent();
// house is now loaded, but agent not - it refers to a proxy object
String name = agent.getName(); // Now the agent data is loaded from DB
OTOH if you are sure that for a specific class you (almost) always need a specific property, you can specify eager loading in the ORM mapping for that property, in which case the property is loaded as soon as the containing object. In the mapping you can also specify whether you want a join query or a subselect query.
LINQ to SQL uses ID + Object and it works out well. I prefer that model as it's most flexible. Hibernate can do the same. One issue you will face is deep loading: when do you actually load the object and not just the ID? Both LINQ to SQL and Hibernate have lazy loading and give you control over this issue.
The Entity Framework however looks to give you this complete control where you can decide just how the data appears regardless the physical underpinnings. It has not been fully realized yet however.
There's really no impurity going on here. The problem is you're trying to represent an abstraction of data that is relationship in an object oriented fashion. To get around the pains of developing like this, larger scale projects are moving to Domain Driven Design where the underlying data is abstracted out into logical groupings of Repositories. Thinking in tables as classes can be problematic for large scale solutions.
Just my 2 cents.
Hibernate, the most popular ORM tool in the Java ecosystem, usually allows you to do this:
class House {
String color;
Double price;
Integer squareFeet;
RealEstateAgent realEstateAgent;
}
This translates to a DB-table that looks like this: house(id, color, price, squareFeet, real_estate_agent_id)
If you need to print the name of the agent you just walk traverse the object graph:
house.getRealEstatAgent().getName()
Through lazy loading, this is done quite efficiently. I wouldn't worry about the fact that an extra query trip to the database may have to be done until your stress tests prove this to be a problem.
Edit after your edit:
All the solutions out there have dealt with the paradigm mismatch (between the OO and Relational worlds) in a similar fashion. The designs have been made, the problem is solved. And yes, it remains a pain in the butt to deal with as an application developer but I suppose it is just the way it is as long as we want to use relational databases and object oriented persistence together.
context:
I have an entity Book. A book can have one or more Descriptions. Descriptions are value objects.
problem:
A description can be more specific than another description. Eg if a description contains the content of the book and how the cover looks it is more specific than a description that only discusses how the cover looks. I don't know how to model this and how to have the repository save it. It is not the responsibility of the book nor of the book description to know these relationships. Some other object can handle this and then ask the repository to save the relationships. But BookRepository.addMoreSpecificDescription(Description, MoreSpecificDescription) seems difficult for the repository to save.
How is such a thing handled in DDD?
The other two answers are one direction (+1 btw). I am coming in after your edit to the original question, so here are my two cents...
I define a Value Object as an object with two or more properties that can (and is) shared amongst other entities. They can be shared only within a single Aggregate Root, that's fine too. Just the fact that they can (and are) shared.
To use your example, you define a "Description" as a Value Object. That tells me that "Description" with multiple properties can be shared amongst several Books. In the real-world, that does not make sense as we all know each book has unique descriptions written by the master of who authored or published the book. Hehe. So, I would argue that Descriptions aren't really Value Objects, but themselves are additional Entity objects within your Book Aggregate Root Entity boundery (you can have multiple entities within a single aggregate root's entity). Even books that are re-released, a newer revision, etc have slightly different descriptions describing that slight change.
I believe that answers your question - make the descriptions entity objects and protect them behind your main Book Entity Aggregate Root (e.g. Book.GetDescriptions()...). The rest of this answer addresses how I handle Value Objects in Repositories, for others reading this post...
For storing Value Objects in a repository, and retrieving them, we start to encroach onto the same territory I wrestled with myself when I went switched from a "Database-first" modeling approach to a DDD approach. I myself wreslted with this one, on how to store a Value Object in the DB, and retrieve it without an Identity. Until I stepped back and realized what i was doing...
In Domain Driven Design, you are modeling the Value Objects in your domain - not your data store. That is the key phrase. It means you are not designing the Value Objects to be stored as independant objects in the data store, you can store them however you like!
Let's take the common DDD example of Value Objects, that being an Address(). DDD presents that an Mailing Address is the perfect Value Object example, as the definition of a Value Object is an object of who's properties sum up to create the uniqueness of the object. If a property changes, it will be a different Value Object. And the same Value Object 9teh sum of its properties) can be shared amongst other Entities.
A Mailing Address is a location, a long/lat of a specific location on the planet. Multiple people can live at the address, and when someone moves, the new people to occupy the same Mailing Address now use the same Value Object.
So, I have a Person() object with a MailingAddress() object that has the address information in it. It is protected behind my Person() aggregate root with get/update/create methods/services.
Now, how do we store that and share it amongst the people in the same household? Ah, there lies DDD - you aren't modeling your data store straight from your DDD (even though, that would be nice). With that said, you simple create a single Table that presents your Person object, and it has the columns for your mailing address within it. It is the job of your Repository to re-hydrate that information back into your Person() and MailingAddress() object from the data store, and to split it up during the Create/Update operations.
Yep, you'd have duplicate data now in your data store. Three Person() entities with the same mailing address all now have three seperate copies of that Value Object data - and that is ok! Value Objects are meant to be copied and destoyed quite easily. "Copy" is the optimum word there in the DDD playbook.
So to sum up, Domain Drive Design is about modeling your Domain to represent your actual business use of the objects. You model a Person() entity and a MailingAddress Value Object seperately, as they are represented differently in your application. You persist them a copied-data, that being additional columns in the same table as your Person table.
All of the above is strict-DDD. But, DDD is meant to be just "suggestions", not rules to live by. That's why you are free to do what myself and many others have done, kind of a loose-DDD style. If you don't like the copied data, your only option is that being you can create a seperate table for MailingAddress() and stick an Identity column on it, and update your MailingAddress() object to have now have that identity on it - knowing you only use that identity to link it to other Person() objects that share it (I personally like a 3rd many-to-many relationship table, to keep the speed of the queries up). You would mask that Idenity (i.e. internal modifier) from being exposed outside of your Aggregate Root/Domain, so other layers (such as the Application or UI) do not know of the Identity column of the MailingAddress, if possible. Also, I would create a dedicated Repository just for MailingAddress, and use your PersonService layer to combine them into the correct object, Person.MailingAddress().
Sorry for the rant... :)
First, I think that reviews should be entities.
Second, why are you trying to model relationships between reviews? I don't see a natural relationship between them. "More specific than" is too vague to be useful as a relationship.
If you're having difficulty modeling the situation, that suggests that maybe there is no relationship.
I agree with Jason. I don't know what your rationale is for making reviews value objects.
I would expect a BookReview to have BookReviewContentItems so that you could have a method on the BookReview to call to decide if it is specific enough, where the method decides based on querying its collection of content items.
I'm trying to follow DDD, or a least my limited understanding of it.
I'm having trouble fitting a few things into the DDD boxes though.
An example: I have a User Entity. This user Entity has a reference to a UserPreferencesInfo object - this is just a class which contains a bunch of properties regarding user preferences. These properties are fairly unrelated, other than the fact that they are all user preferences (unlike say an Address VO, where all the properties form a meaningful whole).
Question is - what is this UserPreferencesInfo object?
1) Obviously it's not an Entity (I'm just storing it as 'component' in fluent nhibernate speak (i.e. in the same DB table as the User entity).
2) VO? I understand that Value Object are supposed to be Immutable (so you cant cange them, just new them up). This makes complete sense when the object is an address for instance (the address properties form a meaningful 'whole'). But in the case of UserPreferencesInfo I don't think it makes sense. There could be 100 properties (Realistically) There could be maybe 20 properties on this object - why would I want to discard an recreate the object whenever I needed to change one property?
I feel like I need to break the rules here to get what I need, but I don't really like the idea of that (it's a slippery slope!). Am I missing something here?
Thanks
Answer 1 (the practical one)
I'm a huge proponent of DDD, but don't force it. You've already recognised that immutable VOs add more work than is required. DDD is designed to harness complexity, but in this case there is very little complexity to manage.
I would simply treat UserPreferencesInfo as an Entity, and reference it from the User aggregate. Whether you store it as a Component or in a separate table is your choice.
IMHO, the whole Entity vs VO debate can be rendered moot. It's highly unlikely that in 6 months time, another developer will look at your code and say "WTF! He's not using immutable VOs! What the heck was he thinking!!".
Answer 2 (the DDD purist)
Is UserPreferencesInfo actually part of the business domain? Others have mentioned disecting this object. But if you stick to pure DDD, you might need to determine which preferences belong to which Bounded Context.
This in turn could lead to adding Service Layers, and before you know it, you've over-engineered the solution for a very simple problem...
Here's my two cents. Short answer: UserPreferenceInfo is a value object because it describes the characteristics of an object. It's not an entity because there's no need to track an object instance over time.
Longer answer: an object with 100+ properties which are not related is not very DDD-ish. Try to group related properties together to form new VOs or you might discover new entities as well.
Another DDD smell is to have a lot of set properties in the first place. Try to find the essence of the action instead of only setting the value. Example:
// not ddd
employee.Salary = newSalary;
// more ddd
employee.GiveRaise(newSalary);
On the other hand you may very well have legitimate reasons to have a bunch of properties that are no more than getters and setters. But then there's probably simpler methods than DDD to solve the problem. There's nothing wrong with taking the best patterns and ideas from DDD but relax a little of all the "rules", especially for simpler domains.
I'd say a UserPreferenceInfo is actually a part of the User aggregate root. It should be the responsibility of the UserRepository to persist the User Aggregate Root.
Value objects only need to be newed up (in your object model) when their values are shared. A sample scenario for that would be if you check for a similar UserPreferenceInfo and associate the User with that instead of Inserting a new one everytime. Sharing Value Objects make sense if value object tables would get to large and raise speed/storage concerns. The price for sharing is paid on Insert.
It is reasonable to abstract this procedure in the DAL.
If you are not shraing value objects, there is nothing against updating.
As far as I understand, UserPreferenceInfo is a part of User entity. Ergo User entity is an Aggregate root which is retrieved or saved using UserRepository as a whole, along with UserPreferenceInfo and other objects.
Personally, I think that UserPreferenceInfo is entity type, since it has identity - it can be changed, saved and retrieved from repository and still be regarded as the same object (i.e. has identity). But it depends on your usage of it.
It doesn't matter IMHO how object is represented in the DAL - is it stored in a separate table or part of other table. One of the benefits of DDD is persistence ignorance and is ususally a good thing.
Of course, I may be wrong, I am new to DDD too.
Question is - what is this UserPreferencesInfo object?
I don't know how this case is supported by NHibernate, but some ORMs support special concepts for them. For example DataObjects.Net include Structures concept. It seems that you need something like this in NH.
First time ever posting on a blog. Hope I do it right.
Anyway, since you haven't showed us the UserPreferencesInfo object, I am not sure how it's constructed such that you can have a variable number of things in it.
If it were me, I'd make a single class called UserPreference, with id, userid, key, value, displaytype, and whatever other fields you may need in it. This is an entity. it has an id and is tied to a certain user.
Then in your user entity (the root I am assuming), have an ISet.
100 properties sounds like a lot.
Try breaking UserPreferenceInfo up into smaller (more cohesive) types, which likely/hopefully are manageable as VOs.
I have a complex, 3NF database being provided to me for a particular project. I would like to avoid using a class-per-table domain design. Rather, I would like to model my domain objects after how they are used from a conceptual business perspective.
The rub is how to properly persist this information. I know I can go the ADO route, but I'd like to take a stab at using NHibernate, having used it successfully on other projects with more flexible data stores.
So, I need to know if NHibernate will support the following scenario:
I have a conceptual object known as a ProjectStatus, which is comprised of a handful of date stamps for various activities along with some notes about the status. All of the data that comprises the ProjectStatus comes from 2 or more tables. There is no ProjectStatus table.
I know I can do a union-subclass in my NH mapping to get this to work, but...
One of the tables that holds the bulk of the information I need has a composite id (two PK fields that together make up the identity signature). I know NH supports composite ids as well, but how would I go about mapping my the union on the composite key? Do I need to specify a composite key underneath the union-subclass section?
The dba has refused to budge on her near-neurotic 3NF data model, so I'm stuck on that front. If I have to drop to ADO for ease/speed of development, so be it, but I'm hoping NH will rise above...
I gather that you have a base-class and two sub-classes that you want to map to two sub-class tables using the table-per-concrete-class mapping strategy. The two sub-class tables need to declare the same primary keys, and the primary keys need to be mapped in the base-class mapping. You have to declare the id or composite-id in the base-class mapping, so that you can ask NHibernate for an object of the base-class type with the given ID or composite ID. You can't declare them in the subclass-mapping, and you certainly can't declare them to be different for each subclass type (that's what declaring them in the subclass mapping would permit you to do), because from a strongly*-typed object-oriented perspective, that would be leaving the realm of sanity.
*Strong typing, to me, means that variables are statically typed (the type of each variable is known to and enforced by the compiler) and objects are strictly typed (the type of each object is known to and enforced by the runtime).