I developing a 3 tier architecture for an MVC4 webapp + EntityFramwork5.
I want to keep separete the layer, so only DAL knows that I'm using EF, for example.
Actually I have a lot of classes to manage that:
DAL
Entity POCO
Entity DataContext : DbContext
Entity Repository
BL
Entity ViewModel
Entity Service(instantiate Entity Repository)
WEB
Entity Controllers (instantiate Entity Service)
This is working but is quite hard to mantain. I was thinking to remove the Entity Repository in DAL and use directly the DataContext (if I'm not wrong, after all DbContext has been desingned to be a Repository and a Unit of Work), but that will force me to add a reference to EntityFramework.dll in my BL. Is not a big issue, but I0m not sure it is the best choice.
Any advice?
(I hope I gave enough informations, if you need more, just ask)
You can use this this and this article.
An experienced Architect does not need to go through every single step in the book to get a reasonable design done for a small web
application. Such Architects can use their experience to speed up the
process. Since I have done similar web applications before and have
understood my deliverable, I am going to take the faster approach to
get the initial part of our DMS design done. That will hopefully
assist me to shorten the length of this article.
For those who do not have experience, let me briefly mention the general steps that involved in architecturing a software below...
Understand the initial customer requirement - Ask questions and do research to further elaborate the requirement
Define the process flow of the system preferably in visual (diagram) form. I usually draw a process-flow diagram here. In my
effort, I would try to define the manual version of the system first
and then would try to convert that into the automated version while
identifying the processes and their relations. This process-flow
diagram that we draw here can be used as the medium to validate the
captured requirements with the customer too.
Identify the software development model that suite your requirements
When the requirements are fully captured and defined before the design start, you can use the 'Water-Fall' model. But when the
requirements are undefined, a variant of 'Spiral' can be used to deal
with that.
When requirements are not defined, the system gets defined while it is being designed. In such cases, you need to keep adequate spaces
in respective modules, which later expansions are expected.
Decide what architecture to be used. In my case, to design our Document Management System (DMS), I will be using a combination of
ASP.NET MVC and Multitier Architecture (Three Tier Variant).
Analyze the system and identify its modules or sub systems.
Pick one sub system at a time and further analyze it and identify all granular level requirements belonging to that part of the systems.
Recognize the data entities and define the relationships among entities (Entity Relationship Diagram or ER Diagram). That can
followed by identifying the business entities (Some business entities
directly map with the classes of your system) and define the business
process flow.
Organized your entities. This is where you normalize your database, and decide what OOP concepts and design pattern to be used
etc.
Make your design consistent. Follow the same standards across all modules and layers. This includes streamlining the concepts (as an
example, if you have used two different design patterns in two
different modules to achieve the same goal, then pick the better
approach and use that in both the places), and conventions used in the
project.
Tuning the design is the last part of the process. In order to do this, you need to have a meeting with the project team. In that
meeting you need to present your design to your team and make them ask
questions about it. Take this as an opportunity to honestly evaluate/
adjust your design.
Related
Recommendations I understood in Java (which has a lot of restrictions, # least for me), even with hibernate was to have separated layers
Entities like persons, children, users, etc...
DAO entities linked to database
Service providing entities and functionalities, where I'll do the SQL
WebService providing an interface over needs
As I'm starting with Eiffel and store, I'm facing some difficulties I face since ever in programming (hoping there's somebody in this earth who has not the same problem) I always want to generalize things more than necessary. Every time I do a copy-paste, I refactor and look for a solution which makes me able to write it one time... which takes time and time on the delivery of the software, but for me adds more quality and flexibility to the software. I'm actually working alone in a company where I'm going to be the lead developer and if the future wants we'll be more developers. The goal is to develop a platform of services in Eiffel, postgresql-odbc, and an Angular-web front-end.
I'd like to have the more generic pattern to be able to manage entities in the future with typical situations as:
Database entities
Relationships
one_to_one
one_to_many
many_to_one
many_to_many
# The point I'm now, I'm about to develop an architecture which ideally for me has:
DB_ENTITY which as relations: BAG[RELATIONSHIP[P,S]] where P=Primary and S=Secondary
Primary is P->DB_ENTITY when ONE and BAG[P] when MANY
A COMPANY on my design will inherit from DB_ENTITY and add relationships as a BRANCH. So I was thinking having in my COMPANY class branches: RELATIONSHIP[like Current, BRANCH]
The relationship classes would help me to create the CRUD SQL statements into the "service" layer in a more abstract manner.
when I try something more lightweight I find restrictions in the pattern where I have to repeat operations... thats a bit my difficulty
Do you think of any disadvantages of such model I'm creating out of the first shot of development?
Quenio dos Santos not wanting to create an account on stackexchange, I'll quote its answer which could be useful for others
I recommend the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Domain-Driven-Design-Tackling-Complexity-Software-ebook/dp/B00794TAUG/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1540350158&sr=1-2&keywords=domain+driven+design&dpID=51OWGtzQLLL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Not just because of the Repository pattern.
You should be able to implement reusable, abstract classes out of the
repository pattern if you want to get away from repetitive code. In
Java, MyBatis is a framework that helps with that. I really don’t know
if there is anything equivalent in Eiffel. I’m also a new Eiffel
developer.
Some pros-and-cons of the Repository pattern:
You define the SQL yourself. Some see it as a cons, but some see it as a pros, because you have clear understanding of the mapping from
the database to your classes, and it allows you to optimize your
queries, and join several tables into a single class, or smaller
number of classes, when approriate in your context.
More freedom on how you define your domain model. It can be quite different from the schema of your database. Your classes don’t have to
be just a set of anemic attribute holders of the tables in your
database, but they can have behavior and be useful and expressive in a
setting completely independent from your database.
ORM frameworks, like Hibernate, are sometimes hard-to-use for a new developer not very familiar with them. With the repository pattern,
because the mapping is so clear and available in your own code, it
tends to be easier to understand and debug.
You can also have different implementations of your repositories for different technologies, such as NoSQL databases. With ORM frameworks,
you tend to be stuck with a relational database, unless you rework
quite a bit of your dependencies on the ORM framework. It is easier to
encapsulate the data store technology behind repositories, and keep a
clean separation between your domain model and your database.
I’d say those are the main points. Having said that, these are very
general guidelines. I don’t have any experience with data persistent
in Eiffel, so I couldn’t say what are the best practices for Eiffel
developers. But I have a gut feeling that the repository pattern fits
well Eiffel because the original goal of the language was to build
more abstract, domain-rich class libraries, which is the purpose
behind the repository pattern. (By the way, I’m calling it a pattern,
but I’m not sure the author calls it that. The author would probably
call aggregates, entities and repositories, all kinds of classes used
in domain-driven design, all together a pattern.)
I am studying Object Oriented Design and am using usecases with actors and scenario''s to plan out the application i am trying to build. No specific language yet, just the theory at the moment.
I have come to the point where i have identified and written out the use cases for the users, administrator, owner, etc and also the external systems like the feed generator.
but i have come to realise that my application actually consists of multiple smaller apps. like a data gathering application and a analysis application.
Can/should i use the data gathering and analysis app as an actor in the overall application too?
I can write specific use cases for them, with scenarios etc.
Typically, no.
Actor is an entity that sits outside of the system and produces some action. It gets to the system boundaries, but then all interactions between system components are modeled not as usecases, but as i.e. dynamic diagrams or sequence diagrams.
For the record, I think this approach is flawed and doesn't really help you in building applications. I personally prefer thinking about components and their interactions directly, without forcing the idea of architecture to fit a particular modeling scheme.
Most questions revolving around the title of this post ask about making Hibernate, or some other access layer, run in an OSGi container. Or they ask about making the data source run in an OSGi container.
My questions concern the effect of OSGi modularity on the structure of the database itself. Specifically:
How do we make the structure of a database itself modular, so that
when we load a module--say, Contact Management--the schema is
updated to include tables specifically associated with that module?
What is the effect of the foregoing approach on relationships?
I think the second question is the more interesting. Let's say that Contact Management and Project Management are two distinct OSGi modules. Each would have its own set of tables in the schema. But what if, at the database level, we need to form cross-module relationships between two or more tables? Maybe we wish to see a list of projects that a certain contact is, or has been, working on.
Any solution seems to lead down the path of the various modules' having to know too much about each other. We could write into the Project Management specification that that module expects a source of contacts, and then abstract such an expectation through services, interfaces, pub-sub etc. Seems like a lot of work, though, to avoid a hard-wired relationship between the two modules' underlying tables.
What's the point of being modular up top and in the middle if we may necessarily need to break that modularity with relationships between tables down below? Are denormalization and a service bus really a healthy solution?
Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Regarding first question, LiquiBase can be used. You can update and rollback changesets on bundle activation and deactivation.
Regarding second question, I think it is something that should be considered while designing your architecture. There is no help from some tool.
If PM module depends on CM module, it is safe for PM module to assume CM tables currently exist and make foreign relations to them, but not in the opposite direction. You should make it clear in your architecture that what modules depends on what modules and prevent dependency cycles.
After 5 years of JPA, I decided to leave it and after months of investigation I found Querydsl+Liquibase combo the best.
I worked a lot on developing helper OSGi components and a maven-plugin. The functionality of maven-plugin (code generation) can be easily integrated into other build tools as the maven plugin is only a wrapper around a standalone library.
You can find a detailed article about the solution here: http://bzsoldos.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/modularized-persistence/
In this kind of situation it is important to evaluate how independent are these modules/contexts. In DDD terms these two seem to be independent bounded contexts, so a contact in the pm module is a distinct entity (and also another class) than contact in the cm module. If you keep this distinction you then have some denormalization wrt the contact entity (e.g. you copy the id and name of the contact when adding it to a project, later changes to the contact in the cm module will require some pubsub to keep consistency) but each module will be very independent. I would keep the ui as a separate module, depending on both and providing the necessary glue (i.e. passing the ids and required info between them).
Maybe I misread the question, but in my opinion OSGI modularity has absolutely no impact on database structure. It's a data storage level, it can be modular of course, but for it's very own reasons - performance, data volumes, load, etc and with it's very own solutions - clusters, olap, partitioning and replication.
If you need data integrity between cm and pm, it should be provided by means which were initially designed for such sort of task - RDBMS. If you need software modularity - you select OSGI solution and your modules are communicating on much more higher logical/business level. They can be absolutely unaware of how persistence is provided - plain text file or 100-node Oracle RAC cluster.
I am working on a packaged product that is supposed to cater to multiple clients with varying requirements (to a certain degree) and as such should be built in a manner to be flexible enough to be customizable by each specific client. The kind of customization we are talking about here is that different client's may have differing attributes for some of the key business objects. Also, they could have differing business logic tied in with their additional attributes as well
As an very simplistic example: Consider "Automobile" to be a business entity in the system and as such has 4 key attributes i.e. VehicleNumber, YearOfManufacture, Price and Colour.
It is possible that one of the clients using the system adds 2 more attributes to Automobile namely ChassisNumber and EngineCapacity. This client needs some business logic associated with these fields to validate that the same chassisNumber doesnt exist in the system when a new Automobile gets added.
Another client just needs one additional attribute called SaleDate. SaleDate has its own business logic check which validates if the vehicle doesnt exist in some police records as a stolen vehicle when the sale date is entered
Most of my experience has been in mostly making enterprise apps for a single client and I am really struggling to see how I could handle a business entity whose attributes are dynamic and also has a capacity for having dynamic business logic as well in an object oriented paradigm
Key Issues
Are there any general OO principles/patterns that would help me in tackling this kind of design?
I am sure people who have worked on generic / packaged products would have faced similar scenarios in most of them. Any advice / pointers / general guidance is also appreciated.
My technology is .NET 3.5/ C# and the project has a layered architecture with a business layer that consists of business entities that encompass their business logic
This is one of our biggest challenges, as we have multiple clients that all use the same code base, but have widely varying needs. Let me share our evolution story with you:
Our company started out with a single client, and as we began to get other clients, you'd start seeing things like this in the code:
if(clientName == "ABC") {
// do it the way ABC client likes
} else {
// do it the way most clients like.
}
Eventually we got wise to the fact that this makes really ugly and unmanageable code. If another client wanted theirs to behave like ABC's in one place and CBA's in another place, we were stuck. So instead, we turned to a .properties file with a bunch of configuration points.
if((bool)configProps.get("LastNameFirst")) {
// output the last name first
} else {
// output the first name first
}
This was an improvement, but still very clunky. "Magic strings" abounded. There was no real organization or documentation around the various properties. Many of the properties depended on other properties and wouldn't do anything (or would even break something!) if not used in the right combinations. Much (possibly even most) of our time in some iterations was spent fixing bugs that arose because we had "fixed" something for one client that broke another client's configuration. When we got a new client, we would just start with the properties file of another client that had the configuration "most like" the one this client wanted, and then try to tweak things until they looked right.
We tried using various techniques to get these configuration points to be less clunky, but only made moderate progress:
if(userDisplayConfigBean.showLastNameFirst())) {
// output the last name first
} else {
// output the first name first
}
There were a few projects to get these configurations under control. One involved writing an XML-based view engine so that we could better customize the displays for each client.
<client name="ABC">
<field name="last_name" />
<field name="first_name" />
</client>
Another project involved writing a configuration management system to consolidate our configuration code, enforce that each configuration point was well documented, allow super users to change the configuration values at run-time, and allow the code to validate each change to avoid getting an invalid combination of configuration values.
These various changes definitely made life a lot easier with each new client, but most of them failed to address the root of our problems. The change that really benefited us most was when we stopped looking at our product as a series of fixes to make something work for one more client, and we started looking at our product as a "product." When a client asked for a new feature, we started to carefully consider questions like:
How many other clients would be able to use this feature, either now or in the future?
Can it be implemented in a way that doesn't make our code less manageable?
Could we implement a different feature that what they are asking for, which would still meet their needs while being more suited to reuse by other clients?
When implementing a feature, we would take the long view. Rather than creating a new database field that would only be used by one client, we might create a whole new table which could allow any client to define any number of custom fields. It would take more work up-front, but we could allow each client to customize their own product with a great degree of flexibility, without requiring a programmer to change any code.
That said, sometimes there are certain customizations that you can't really accomplish without investing an enormous effort in complex Rules engines and so forth. When you just need to make it work one way for one client and another way for another client, I've found that your best bet is to program to interfaces and leverage dependency injection. If you follow "SOLID" principles to make sure your code is written modularly with good "separation of concerns," etc., it isn't nearly as painful to change the implementation of a particular part of your code for a particular client:
public FirstLastNameGenerator : INameDisplayGenerator
{
IPersonRepository _personRepository;
public FirstLastNameGenerator(IPersonRepository personRepository)
{
_personRepository = personRepository;
}
public string GenerateDisplayNameForPerson(int personId)
{
Person person = _personRepository.GetById(personId);
return person.FirstName + " " + person.LastName;
}
}
public AbcModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Rebind<INameDisplayGenerator>().To<FirstLastNameGenerator>();
}
}
This approach is enhanced by the other techniques I mentioned earlier. For example, I didn't write an AbcNameGenerator because maybe other clients will want similar behavior in their programs. But using this approach you can fairly easily define modules that override default settings for specific clients, in a way that is very flexible and extensible.
Because systems like this are inherently fragile, it is also important to focus heavily on automated testing: Unit tests for individual classes, integration tests to make sure (for example) that your injection bindings are all working correctly, and system tests to make sure everything works together without regressing.
PS: I use "we" throughout this story, even though I wasn't actually working at the company for much of its history.
PPS: Pardon the mixture of C# and Java.
That's a Dynamic Object Model or Adaptive Object Model you're building. And of course, when customers start adding behaviour and data, they are programming, so you need to have version control, tests, release, namespace/context and rights management for that.
A way of approaching this is to use a meta-layer, or reflection, or both. In addition you will need to provide a customisation application which will allow modification, by the users, of your business logic layer. Such a meta-layer does not really fit in your layered architecture - it is more like a layer orthoganal to your existing architecture, though the running application will probably need to refer to it, at least on initialisation. This type of facility is probably one of the fastest ways of screwing up the production application known to man, so you must:
Ensure that the access to this editor is limited to people with a high level of rights on the system (eg administrator).
Provide a sandbox area for the customer modifications to be tested before any changes they are testing are put on the production system.
An "OOPS" facility whereby they can revert their production system to either your provided initial default, or to the last revision before the change.
Your meta-layer must be very tightly specified so that the range of activities is closely defined - George Orwell's "What is not specifically allowed, is forbidden."
Your meta-layer will have objects in it such as Business Object, Method, Property and events such as Add Business Object, Call Method etc.
There is a wealth of information about meta-programming available on the web, but I would start with Pattern Languages of Program Design Vol 2 or any of the WWW resources related to, or emanating from Kent or Coplien.
We develop an SDK that does something like this. We chose COM for our core because we were far more comfortable with it than with low-level .NET, but no doubt you could do it all natively in .NET.
The basic architecture is something like this: Types are described in a COM type library. All types derive from a root type called Object. A COM DLL implements this root Object type and provides generic access to derived types' properties via IDispatch. This DLL is wrapped in a .NET PIA assembly because we anticipate that most developers will prefer to work in .NET. The Object type has a factory method to create objects of any type in the model.
Our product is at version 1 and we haven't implemented methods yet - in this version business logic must be coded into the client application. But our general vision is that methods will be written by the developer in his language of choice, compiled to .NET assemblies or COM DLLs (and maybe Java too) and exposed via IDispatch. Then the same IDispatch implementation in our root Object type can call them.
If you anticipate that most of the custom business logic will be validation (such as checking for duplicate chassis numbers) then you could implement some general events on your root Object type (assuming you did it something like the way we do.) Our Object type fires an event whenever a property is updated, and I suppose this could be augmented by a validation method that gets called automatically if one is defined.
It takes a lot of work to create a generic system like this, but the payoff is that application development on top of the SDK is very quick.
You say that your customers should be able to add custom properties and implement business logic themselves "without programming". If your system also implements data storage based on the types (ours does) then the customer could add properties without programming, by editing the model (we provide a GUI model editor.) You could even provide a generic user application that dynamically presents the appropriate data-entry controls depending on the types, so your customers could capture custom data without additional programming. (We provide a generic client application but it's more a developer tool than a viable end-user application.) I don't see how you could allow your customers to implement custom logic without programming... unless you want to provide some kind of drag-n-drop GUI workflow builder... surely a huge task.
We don't envisage business users doing any of this stuff. In our development model all customisation is done by a developer, but not necessarily an expensive one - part of our vision is to allow less experienced developers produce robust business applications.
Design a core model that acts as its own independent project
Here's a list of some possible basic requirements...
The core design would contain:
classes that work (and possibly be extended) in all of the subprojects.
more complex tools like database interactions (unless those are project specific)
a general configuration structure that should be considered standard across all projects
Then, all of the subsequent projects that are customized per client are considered extensions of this core project.
What you're describing is the basic purpose of any Framework. Namely, create a core set of functionality that can be set apart from the whole so you don't have to duplicate that development effort in every project you create. Ie, drop in a framework and half your work is done already.
You might say, "what about the SCM (Software Configuration Management)?"
How do you track revision history of all of the subprojects without including the core into the subproject repository?
Fortunately, this is an old problem. Many software projects, especially those in the the linux/open source world, make extensive use of external libraries and plugins.
In fact git has a command that's specifically used to import one project repository into another as a sub-repository (preserving all of the sub-repository's revision history etc). In fact, you can't modify the contents of the sub-repository because the project won't track it's history at all.
The command I'm talking about is called 'git submodule'.
You may ask, "what if I develop a really cool feature in one client's project that I'd like to use in all of my client's projects?".
Just add that feature to the core and run a 'git submodule sync' on all the other projects. The way git submodule works is, it points to a specific commit within the sub-repository's history tree. So, when that tree is changed upstream, you need to pull those changes back downstream to the projects where they're used.
The structure to implement such a thing would work like this. Lets say that you software is written specifically to manage a car dealership (inventory, sales, employees, customers, orders, etc...). You create a core module that covers all of these features because they are expected to be used in the software for all of your clients.
But, you have recently gained a new client who wants to be more tech savvy by adding online sales to their dealership. Of course, their website is designed by a separate team of web developers/designers and webmaster but they want a web API (Ie, service layer) to tap into the current infrastructure for their website.
What you'd do is create a project for the client, we'll call it WebDealersRUs and link the core submodule into the repository.
The hidden benefit of this is, once you start to look as a codebase as pluggable parts, you can start to design them from the start as modular pieces that are capable of being dropped in to a project with very little effort.
Consider the example above. Lets say that your client base is starting to see the merits of adding a web-front to increase sales. Just pull the web API out of the WebDealersRUs into its own repository and link it back in as a submodule. Then propagate to all of your clients that want it.
What you get is a major payoff with minimal effort.
Of course there will always be parts of every project that are client specific (branding, ect). That's why every client should have a separate repository containing their unique version of the software. But that doesn't mean that you can't pull parts out and generalize them to be reused in subsequent projects.
While I approach this issue from the macro level, it can be applied to smaller/more specific parts of the codebase. The key here is code that you wish to re-use needs to be genericized.
OOP comes into play here because: where the functionality is implemented in the core but extended in client's code you'll use a base class and inherit from it; where the functionality is expected to return a similar type of result but the implementations of that functionality may be wildly different across classes (Ie, there's no direct inheritance hierarchy) it's best to use an interface to enforce that relationship.
I know your question is general, not tied to a technology, but since you mention you actually work with .NET, I suggest you look at a new and very important technology piece that is part of .NET 4: the 'dynamic' type.
There is also a good article on CodeProject here: DynamicObjects – Duck-Typing in .NET.
It's probably worth to look at, because, if I have to implement the dynamic system you describe, I would certainly try to implement my entities based on the DynamicObject class and add custom properties and methods using the TryGetxxx methods. It also depends whether you are focused on compile time or runtime. Here is an interesting link here on SO: Dynamically adding members to a dynamic object on this subject.
Two approaches is what I feel:
1) If different clients fall on to same domain (as Manufacturing/Finance) then it's better to design objects in such a way that BaseObject should have attributes which are very common and other's which could vary in between clients as key-value pairs. On top of it, try to implement rule engine like IBM ILog(http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/business-rule-management/rulesnet-family/about/).
2) Predictive Model Markup Language(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMML)
To be perfectly clear, I do not expect a solution to this problem. A big part of figuring this out is obviously solving the problem. However, I don't have a lot of experience with well architected n-tier applications and I don't want to end up with an unruly BLL.
At the moment of writing this, our business logic is largely a intermingled ball of twine. An intergalactic mess of dependencies with the same identical business logic being replicated more than once. My focus right now is to pull the business logic out of the thing we refer to as a data access layer, so that I can define well known events that can be subscribed to. I think I want to support an event driven/reactive programming model.
My hope is that there's certain attainable goals that tell me how to design these collection of classes in a manner well suited for business logic. If there are things that differentiate a good BLL from a bad BLL I'd like to hear more about them.
As a seasoned programmer but fairly modest architect I ask my fellow community members for advice.
Edit 1:
So the validation logic goes into the business objects, but that means that the business objects need to communicate validation error/logic back to the GUI. That get's me thinking of implementing business operations as objects rather than objects to provide a lot more metadata about the necessities of an operation. I'm not a big fan of code cloning.
Kind of a broad question. Separate your DB from your business logic (horrible term) with ORM tech (NHibernate perhaps?). That let's you stay in OO land mostly (obviously) and you can mostly ignore the DB side of things from an architectural point of view.
Moving on, I find Domain Driven Design (DDD) to be the most successful method for breaking a complex system into manageable chunks, and although it gets no respect I genuinely find UML - especially action and class diagrams - to be critically useful in understanding and communicating system design.
General advice: Interface everything, build your unit tests from the start, and learn to recognise and separate the reusable service components that can exist as subsystems. FWIW if there's a bunch of you working on this I'd also agree on and aggressively use stylecop from the get go :)
I have found some o fthe practices of Domain Driven Design to be excellent when it comes to splitting up complex business logic into more managable/testable chunks.
Have a look through the sample code from the following link:
http://dddpds.codeplex.com/
DDD focuses on your Domain layer or BLL if you like, I hope it helps.
We're just talking about this from an architecture standpoint, and what remains as the gist of it is "abstraction, abstraction, abstraction".
You could use EBC to design top-down and pass the interface definitions to the programmer teams. Using a methology like this (or any other visualisation technique) visualizing the dependencies prevents you from duplicating business logic anywhere in your project.
Hmm, I can tell you the technique we used for a rather large database-centered application. We had one class which managed the datalayer as you suggested which had suffix DL. We had a program which automatically generated this source file (which was quite convenient), though it also meant if we wanted to extend functionality, you needed to derive the class since upon regeneration of the source you'd overwrite it.
We had another file end with OBJ which simply defined the actual database row handled by the datalayer.
And last but not least, with a well-formed base class there was a file ending in BS (standing for business logic) as the only file not generated automatically defining event methods such as "New" and "Save" such that by calling the base, the default action was done. Therefore, any deviation from the norm could be handled in this file (including complete rewrites of default functionality if necessary).
You should create a single group of such files for each table and its children (or grandchildren) tables which derive from that master table. You'll also need a factory which contains the full names of all objects so that any object can be created via reflection. So to patch the program, you'd merely have to derive from the base functionality and update a line in the database so that the factory creates that object rather than the default.
Hope that helps, though I'll leave this a community wiki response so perhaps you can get some more feedback on this suggestion.
Have a look in this thread. May give you some thoughts.
How should my business logic interact with my data layer?
This guide from Microsoft could also be helpful.
Regarding "Edit 1" - I've encountered exactly that problem many times. I agree with you completely: there are multiple places where the same validation must occur.
The way I've resolved it in the past is to encapsulate the validation rules somehow. Metadata/XML, separate objects, whatever. Just make sure it's something that can be requested from the business objects, taken somewhere else and executed there. That way, you're writing the validation code once, and it can be executed by your business objects or UI objects, or possibly even by third-party consumers of your code.
There is one caveat: some validation rules are easy to encapsulate/transport; "last name is a required field" for example. However, some of your validation rules may be too complex and involve far too many objects to be easily encapsulated or described in metadata: "user can include that coupon only if they aren't an employee, and the order is placed on labor day weekend, and they have between 2 and 5 items of this particular type in their cart, unless they also have these other items in their cart, but only if the color is one of our 'premiere sale' colors, except blah blah blah...." - you know how business 'logic' is! ;)
In those cases, I usually just accept the fact that there will be some additional validation done only at the business layer, and ensure there's a way for those errors to be propagated back to the UI layer when they occur (you're going to need that communication channel anyway, to report back persistence-layer errors anyway).