Breaking BLL (Business Logic Layer) to BLL and DAL (Data Access Layer) - vb.net

Question

Please see the code below:
Imports Microsoft.VisualBasic
Public Class PersonBLL
Private Name As String
Private Age As Integer
Dim objPersonDAL As New PersonDAL
Dim objPerson As Person
Public Sub getPersonByID()
objPerson = objPersonDAL.getPersonByID()
MsgBox(objPerson.Name)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class PersonDAL
Private Name As String
Private Age As Integer
Public Function getPersonByID() As Person
'Connect to database and get Person. Return a person object
Dim p1 As New Person
p1.Name = "Ian"
p1.Age = 30
Return p1
End Function
End Class
Public Class Person
Private _Name As String
Private _Age As Integer
Public Property Name() As String
Get
Return _Name
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
_Name = value
End Set
End Property
Public Property Age() As Integer
Get
Return _Age
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_Age = value
End Set
End Property
End Class
PersonBLL calls PersonDAL and returns a Person object. Is this the correct approach? i.e. I have identified a persistent class and created a corresponding DAL class with a function for accessing the data and returning the Person object.
There is a comment that states that this question is "subjective". I agree with this. I realise that the design depends on the requirements of the project. Are there any principles documented for designing a DAL similar to SOLID (single responsibility etc) etc.

Answer 1

Yes, your question demonstrates a very clean way to separate the logic into layers. The PersonBLL class would be part of the business layer, the PersonDAL class would be part of the data access layer, and the Person class would be part of the data transfer objects (DTO) layer. This is a very common way to separate your layers which works well in many situations.
My only recommendations would be:
You should put each layer in their own namespaces, if not also their own class library projects.
You should not show a message box from the business layer. I assume you only did this as a means of demonstration, but just in case, I thought I should mention it. Showing a message box should be part of the UI layer. For instance, if you were calling PersonBLL.getPersonByID from a windows service or a web service, showing a message box would be entirely inappropriate.
Typically, all methods are PascalCase, not camelCase. Some people prefer to make private methods camel case, but certainly public methods shouldn't be camel case.
Consider using dependency-injection techniques (DI) to inject the data access object into the business object.
Dependency Injection
Here's an example of how to do this with DI techniques:
Public Class BusinessFactory
Public Function NewPersonBusiness() As IPersonBusiness
Return New PersonBusiness(New PersonDataAccess())
End Function
End Class
Public Class PersonBusiness
Implements IPersonBusiness
Public Sub New(personDataAccess As IPersonDataAccess)
_personDataAccess = personDataAccess
End Sub
Private _personDataAccess As IPersonDataAccess
Public Function GetPersonByID() As PersonDto Implements IPersonBusiness.GetPersonByID
Return _personDataAccess.GetPersonByID()
End Sub
End Class
Public Interface IPersonBusiness
Function GetPersonByID() As PersonDto
End Interface
Public Interface IPersonDataAccess
Function GetPersonById() As PersonDto
End Interface
Public Class PersonDto
Private _name As String
Private _age As Integer
Public Property Name() As String
Get
Return _name
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
_name = value
End Set
End Property
Public Property Age() As Integer
Get
Return _age
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_age = value
End Set
End Property
End Class
Doing it this way has many advantages. You can have multiple interchangeable data access layer implementations, so it's more flexible. Also, you can inject a fake data access object when you want to unit test the business class. DI design avoids many of the traps that lead to buggy, spaghetti code.
With DI, it is typically recommended that you ask for dependency objects as an interface rather than as a concrete type (e.g. IPersonDataAccess rather than PersonDataAccess). Doing so can be a little bit of a hassle, but you get use to it quickly. Since you are often, at that point, creating one interface for every class, it's convenient to just put the interface in the same code file as the class. So, for instance, PersonBusiness.vb would contain both the PersonDataAccess class and the IPersonDataAccess interface.
There are two reasons why using interfaces, rather than classes, for your dependencies is important:
It ensures that the design is flexible. You want to be able to override every public member of the dependency type so that you can create any kind of concrete implementation. There are other ways to do this. For instance, you could skip creating the IPersonDataAcess interface by simply marking every public property and method in the PersonDataAccess class with the Overrideable modifier, but there's nothing forcing you to do that. Even if you always remembered to do so, that doesn't mean someone else working on your code would know they should do that.
DI is often tied-in with unit testing because it is the best tool available for ensuring that code is testable. When unit testing, it is particularly important that you are able to override ever member in a dependency type so you can make a "fake" object that works just the way you need it to work in order to properly perform the unit test. These "fake" objects are called mocks.
You are being more technically honest about what your dependency is. In reality, you aren't really saying that your dependency is actually an instance of the PersonDataAccess class. In actuality, your dependency is any object that happens to have that same public interface. By asking for the class, you are implying that you need a particular implementation, which is a lie. If you have designed it properly, you only care about the interface being the same, so by asking only for the interface itself, you are specifying precisely what you mean to specify :)