I'd like to use for table storage an entity like this:
public class MyEntity
{
public String Text { get; private set; }
public Int32 SomeValue { get; private set; }
public MyEntity(String text, Int32 someValue)
{
Text = text;
SomeValue = someValue;
}
}
But it's not possible, because the ATS needs
Parameterless constructor
All properties public and
read/write.
Inherit from TableServiceEntity;
The first two, are two things I don't want to do. Why should I want that anybody could change some data that should be readonly? or create objects of this kind in a inconsistent way (what are .ctor's for then?), or even worst, alter the PartitionKey or the RowKey. Why are we still constrained by these deserialization requirements?
I don't like develop software in that way, how can I use table storage library in a way that I can serialize and deserialize myself the objects? I think that as long the objects inherits from TableServiceEntity it shouldn't be a problem.
So far I got to save an object, but I don't know how retrieve it:
Message m = new Message("message XXXXXXXXXXXXX");
CloudTableClient tableClient = account.CreateCloudTableClient();
tableClient.CreateTableIfNotExist("Messages");
TableServiceContext tcontext = new TableServiceContext(account.TableEndpoint.AbsoluteUri, account.Credentials);
var list = tableClient.ListTables().ToArray();
tcontext.AddObject("Messages", m);
tcontext.SaveChanges();
Is there any way to avoid those deserialization requirements or get the raw object?
Cheers.
If you want to use the Storage Client Library, then yes, there are restrictions on what you can and can't do with your objects that you want to store. Point 1 is correct. I'd expand point 2 to say "All properties that you want to store must be public and read/write" (for integer properties you can get away with having read only properties and it won't try to save them) but you don't actually have to inherit from TableServiceEntity.
TableServiceEntity is just a very light class that has the properties PartitionKey, RowKey, Timestamp and is decorated with the DataServiceKey attribute (take a look with Reflector). All of these things you can do to a class that you create yourself and doesn't inherit from TableServiceEntity (note that the casing of these properties is important).
If this still doesn't give you enough control over how you build your classes, you can always ignore the Storage Client Library and just use the REST API directly. This will give you the ability to searialize and deserialize the XML any which way you like. You will lose the all of the nice things that come with using the library, like ability to create queries in LINQ.
The constraints around that ADO.NET wrapper for the Table Storage are indeed somewhat painful. You can also adopt a Fat Entity approach as implemented in Lokad.Cloud. This will give you much more flexibility concerning the serialization of your entities.
Just don't use inheritance.
If you want to use your own POCO's, create your class as you want it and create a separate tableEntity wrapper/container class that holds the pK and rK and carries your class as a serialized byte array.
You can use composition to achieve what you want.
Create your Table Entities as you need to for storage and create your POCOs as wrappers on those providing the API you want the rest of your application code to see.
You can even mix in some interfaces for better code.
How about generating the POCO wrappers at runtime using System.Reflection.Emit http://blog.kloud.com.au/2012/09/30/a-better-dynamic-tableserviceentity/
I had a discussion at work regarding "Inheritance in domain model is complicating developers life". I'm an OO programmer so I started to look for arguments that having inheritance in domain model will ease the developer life actually instead of having switches all over the place.
What I would like to see is this :
class Animal {
}
class Cat : Animal {
}
class Dog : Animal {
}
What the other colleague is saying is :
public enum AnimalType {
Unknown,
Cat,
Dog
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
How do I convince him (links are WELCOME ) that a class hierarchy would be better than having a enum property for this kind of situations?
Thanks!
Here is how I reason about it:
Only use inheritance if the role/type will never change.
e.g.
using inheritance for things like:
Fireman <- Employee <- Person is wrong.
as soon as Freddy the fireman changes job or becomes unemployed, you have to kill him and recreate a new object of the new type with all of the old relations attached to it.
So the naive solution to the above problem would be to give a JobTitle enum property to the person class.
This can be enough in some scenarios, e.g. if you don't need very complex behaviors associated with the role/type.
The more correct way would be to give the person class a list of roles.
Each role represents e.g an employment with a time span.
e.g.
freddy.Roles.Add(new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle ));
or if that is overkill:
freddy.CurrentEmployment = new Employement( employmentDate, jobTitle );
This way , Freddy can become a developer w/o we having to kill him first.
However, all my ramblings still haven't answered if you should use an enum or type hierarchy for the jobtitle.
In pure in mem OO I'd say that it's more correct to use inheritance for the jobtitles here.
But if you are doing O/R mapping you might end up with a bit overcomplex data model behind the scenes if the mapper tries to map each sub type to a new table.
So in such cases, I often go for the enum approach if there is no real/complex behavior associated with the types.
I can live with a "if type == JobTitles.Fireman ..." if the usage is limited and it makes things easer or less complex.
e.g. the Entity Framework 4 designer for .NET can only map each sub type to a new table. and you might get an ugly model or alot of joins when you query your database w/o any real benefit.
However I do use inheritance if the type/role is static.
e.g. for Products.
you might have CD <- Product and Book <- Product.
Inheritance wins here because in this case you most likely have different state associated with the types.
CD might have a number of tracks property while a book might have number of pages property.
So in short, it depends ;-)
Also, at the end of the day you will most likely end up with a lot of switch statements either way.
Let's say you want to edit a "Product" , even if you use inheritance, you will probably have code like this:
if (product is Book)
Response.Redicted("~/EditBook.aspx?id" + product.id);
Because encoding the edit book url in the entity class would be plain ugly since it would force your business entites to know about your site structure etc.
Having an enum is like throwing a party for all those Open/Closed Principle is for suckers people.
It invites you to check if an animal is of a certain type and then apply custom logic for each type. And that can render horrible code, which makes it hard to continue building on your system.
Why?
Doing "if this type, do this, else do that" prevents good code.
Any time you introduce a new type, all those ifs get invalid if the new type is not handled. In larger systems, it's hard to find all those ifs, which will lead to bugs eventually.
A much better approach is to use small, well-defined feature interfaces (Interface segregation principle).
Then you will only have an if but no 'else' since all concretes can implement a specific feature.
Compare
if (animal is ICanFly flyer)
flyer.Sail();
to
// A bird and a fly are fundamentally different implementations
// but both can fly.
if (animal is Bird b)
b.Sail();
else if (animal is Fly f)
b.Sail();
See? the former one needs to be checked once while the latter has to be checked for every animal that can fly.
Enums are good when:
The set of values is fixed and never or very rarely changes.
You want to be able to represent a union of values (i.e. combining flags).
You don't need to attach other state to each value. (Java doesn't have this limitation.)
If you could solve your problem with a number, an enum is likely a good fit and more type safe. If you need any more flexibility than the above, then enums are likely not the right answer. Using polymorphic classes, you can:
Statically ensure that all type-specific behavior is handled. For example, if you need all animals to be able to Bark(), making Animal classes with an abstract Bark() method will let the compiler check for you that each subclass implements it. If you use an enum and a big switch, it won't ensure that you've handled every case.
You can add new cases (types of animals in your example). This can be done across source files, and even across package boundaries. With an enum, once you've declared it, it's frozen. Open-ended extension is one of the primary strengths of OOP.
It's important to note that your colleague's example is not in direct opposition to yours. If he wants an animal's type to be an exposed property (which is useful for some things), you can still do that without using an enum, using the type object pattern:
public abstract class AnimalType {
public static AnimalType Unknown { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Cat { get; private set; }
public static AnimalType Dog { get; private set; }
static AnimalType() {
Unknown = new AnimalType("Unknown");
Cat = new AnimalType("Cat");
Dog = new AnimalType("Dog");
}
}
public class Animal {
public AnimalType Type { get; set; }
}
This gives you the convenience of an enum: you can do AnimalType.Cat and you can get the type of an animal. But it also gives you the flexibility of classes: you can add fields to AnimalType to store additional data with each type, add virtual methods, etc. More importantly, you can define new animal types by just creating new instances of AnimalType.
I'd urge you to reconsider: in an anemic domain model (per the comments above), cats don't behave differently than dogs, so there's no polymorphism. An animal's type really is just an attribute. It's hard to see what inheritance buys you there.
Most importantly OOPS means modeling reality. Inheritance gives you the opportunity to say Cat is an animal. Animal should not know if its a cat now shout it and then decide that it is suppose to Meow and not Bark, Encapsulation gets defeated there. Less code as now you do not have to do If else as you said.
Both solutions are right.
You should look which techniques applies better to you problem.
If your program uses few different objects, and doesn't add new classes, its better to stay with enumerations.
But if you program uses a lot of different objects (different classes), and may add new classes, in the future, better try the inheritance way.
I know this sort of question has been asked before, but I still feel that the answer is too ambiguous for me (and, by extension, some/most beginners) to grasp.
I have been trying to teach myself broader concepts of programming than procedural and basic OOP. I understand the concrete concepts of OOP (you make a class that has data (members) and functions (methods) and then instantiate that class at run time to actually do stuff, that kind of thing).
I think I have a handle on what a class is (sort of a design blueprint for an instance to be created in its likeness at compile time). But if that's the case, what is an object? I also know that in prototype based languages, this can muck things up even more, but perhaps this is why there needs to be a clear distinction between object and instance in my mind.
Beyond that, I struggle with the concepts of "object" and "instance". A lot of resources that I read (including answers at SO) say that they are largely the same and that the difference is in semantics. Other people say that there is a true conceptual difference between the two.
Can the experts here at SO help a beginner have that "aha" moment to move forward in the world of OOP?
Note: this isn't homework, I don't go to school - however, I think it would help people that are looking for homework help.
A blueprint for a house design is like a class description. All the houses built from that blueprint are objects of that class. A given house is an instance.
The truth is that object oriented programming often creates confusion by creating a disconnect between the philosophical side of development and the actual mechanical workings of the computer. I'll try to contrast the two for you:
The basic concept of OOP is this: Class >> Object >> Instance.
The class = the blue print.
The Object is an actual thing that is built based on the 'blue print' (like the house).
An instance is a virtual copy (but not a real copy) of the object.
The more technical explanation of an 'instance' is that it is a 'memory reference' or a reference variable. This means that an 'instance' is a variable in memory that only has a memory address of an object in it. The object it addresses is the same object the instance is said to be 'an instance of'. If you have many instances of an object, you really just have many variables in difference places in your memory that all have the same exact memory address in it - which are all the address of the same exact object. You can't ever 'change' an instance, although it looks like you can in your code. What you really do when you 'change' an instance is you change the original object directly. Electronically, the processor goes through one extra place in memory (the reference variable/instance) before it changes the data of the original object.
The process is: processor >> memory location of instance >> memory location of original object.
Note that it doesn't matter which instance you use - the end result will always be the same. ALL the instances will continue to maintain the same exact information in their memory locations - the object's memory address - and only the object will change.
The relationship between class and object is a bit more confusing, although philosophically its the easiest to understand (blue print >> house). If the object is actual data that is held somewhere in memory, what is 'class'? It turns out that mechanically the object is an exact copy of the class. So the class is just another variable somewhere else in memory that holds the same exact information that the object does. Note the difference between the relationships:
Object is a copy of the class.
Instance is a variable that holds the memory address of the object.
You can also have multiple objects of the same class and then multiple instances of each of those objects. In these cases, each object's set of instances are equivalent in value, but the instances between objects are not. For example:
Let Class A
From Class A let Object1, Object2, and Object3.
//Object1 has the same exact value as object2 and object3, but are in different places in memory.
from Object1>> let obj1_Instance1, obj1_Instace2 , obj1_Instance3
//all of these instances are also equivalent in value and in different places in memory. Their values = Object1.MemoryAddress.
etc.
Things get messier when you start introducing types. Here's an example using types from c#:
//assume class Person exists
Person john = new Person();
Actually, this code is easier to analyze if you break it down into two parts:
Person john;
john = new Person();
In technical speak, the first line 'declares a variable of type Person. But what does that mean?? The general explanation is that I now have an empty variable that can only hold a Person object. But wait a minute - its an empty variable! There is nothing in that variables memory location. It turns out that 'types' are mechanically meaningless. Types were originally invented as a way to manage data and nothing else. Even when you declare primitive types such as int, str, chr (w/o initializing it), nothing happens within the computer. This weird syntactical aspect of programming is part of where people get the idea that classes are the blueprint of objects. OOP's have gotten even more confusing with types with delegate types, event handlers, etc. I would try not focus on them too much and just remember that they are all a misnomer. Nothing changes with the variable until its either becomes an object or is set to a memory address of an object.
The second line is also a bit confusing because it does two things at once:
The right side "new Person()" is evaluated first. It creates a new copy of the Person class - that is, it creates a new object.
The left side "john =", is then evaluated after that. It turns john into a reference variable giving it the memory address of the object that was just created on the right side of the same line.
If you want to become a good developer, its important to understand that no computer environment ever works based on philosophic ideals. Computers aren't even that logical - they're really just a big collection of wires that are glued together using basic boolean circuits (mostly NAND and OR).
The word Class comes from Classification (A Category into which something is put), Now we have all heard that a Class is like a Blueprint,but what does this exactly mean ? It means that the Class holds a Description of a particular Category ,(I would like to show the difference between Class , Object and Instance with example using Java and I would request the readers to visualise it like a Story while reading it , and if you are not familiar with java doesn't matter) So let us start with make a Category called HumanBeing , so the Java program will expressed it as follows
class HumanBeing{
/*We will slowly build this category*/
}
Now what attributes does a HumanBeing have in general Name,Age,Height,Weight for now let us limit our self to these four attributes, let us add it to our Category
class HumanBeing{
private String Name;
private int Age;
private float Height;
private float Weight;
/*We still need to add methods*/
}
Now every category has a behaviour for example category Dog has a behaviour to bark,fetch,roll etc... , Similarly our category HumanBeing can also have certain behaviour,for example when we ask our HumanBeing what is your name/age/weight/height? It should give us its name/age/weight/height, so in java we do it as follows
class HumanBeing{
private String Name;
private int Age;
private float Height;
private float Weight;
public HumanBeing(String Name,int Age,float Height,float Weight){
this.Name = Name;
this.Age = Age;
this.Height = Height;
this.Weight = Weight;
}
public String getName(){
return this.Name;
}
public int getAge(){
return this.age;
}
public float getHeight(){
return this.Height;
}
public float getWeight(){
return this.Weight;
}
}
Now we have added behaviour to our category HumanBeing,so we can ask for its name ,age ,height ,weight but whom will you ask these details from , because class HumanBeing is just a category , it is a blueprint for example an Architect makes a blueprint on a paper of the building he wants to build , now we cannot go on live in the blueprint(its description of the building) we can only live in the building once it is built
So here we need to make a humanbeing from our category which we have described above , so how do we do that in Java
class Birth{
public static void main(String [] args){
HumanBeing firstHuman = new HumanBeing("Adam",25,6.2,90);
}
}
Now in the above example we have created our first human being with name age height weight , so what exactly is happening in the above code? . We are Instantiating our category HumanBeing i.e An Object of our class is created
Note : Object and Instance are not Synonyms In some cases it seems like Object and Instance are Synonyms but they are not, I will give both cases
Case 1: Object and Instance seems to be Synonyms
Let me elaborate a bit , when we say HumanBeing firstHuman = new HumanBeing("Adam",25,6.2,90); An Object of our category is created on the heap memory and some address is allocated to it , and firstHuman holds a reference to that address, now this Object is An Object of HumanBeing and also An Instance of HumanBeing.
Here it seems like Objects and Instance are Synonyms,I will repeat myself they are not synonyms
Let Us Resume our Story , we have created our firstHuman , now we can ask his name,age,height,weight , this is how we do it in Java
class Birth{
public static void main(String [] args){
HumanBeing firstHuman = new HumanBeing("Adam",25,6.2,90);
System.out.println(firstHuman.getName());
System.out.println(firstHuman.getAge());
...
...
}
}
so we have first human being and lets move feather by give our first human being some qualification ,let's make him a Doctor , so we need a category called Doctor and give our Doctor some behaviour ,so in java we do as follows
class Doctor extends HumanBeing{
public Doctor(String Name,int Age,float Height,float Weight){
super(Name,Age,Height,Weight);
}
public void doOperation(){
/* Do some Operation*/
}
public void doConsultation(){
/* Do so Consultation*/
}
}
Here we have used the concept of Inheritance which is bringing some reusability in the code , Every Doctor will always be a HumanBeing first , so A Doctor will have Name,Age,Weight,Height which will be Inherited from HumanBeing instead of writing it again , note that we have just written a description of a doctor we have not yet created one , so let us create a Doctor in our class Birth
class Birth{
public static void main(String [] args){
Doctor firstDoctor = new Doctor("Strange",40,6,80);
.......
.......
/*Assume some method calls , use of behaviour*/
.......
.......
}
}
Case 2: Object and Instance are not Synonyms
In the above code we can visualise that we are Instantiating our category Doctor and bringing it to life i.e we are simply creating an Object of the category Doctor , As we already know Object are created on Heap Memory and firstDoctor holds a reference to that Object on the heap ;
This particular Object firstDoctor is as follows (please note firstDoctor holds a reference to the object , it is not the object itself)
firstDoctor is An Object of class Doctor And An Instance of A class Doctor
firstDoctor is Not An Object of class HumanBeing But An Instance of class HumanBeing
So a particular Object can be an instance to a particular class but it need not be an object of that given class
Conclusion:
An Object is said to be an Instance of a particular Category if it satisfies all the characteristic of that particular Category
Real world example will be as follows , we are first born as Humans so image us as Object of Human , now when we grow up we take up responsibilities and learn new skills and play different roles in life example Son, brother, a daughter, father ,mother now What are we actually?We can say that we are Objects of Human But Instances of Brother,daughter,...,etc
I hope this helps
Thank You
Objects are things in memory while instances are things that reference to them. In the above pic:
std(instance) -> Student Object (right)
std1(instance) -> Student Object (left)
std2(instance) -> Student Object (left)
std3(instance) -> no object (null)
An object is an instance of a class (for class based languages).
I think this is the simplest explanation I can come up with.
A class defines an object. You can go even further in many languages and say an interface defines common attributes and methods between objects.
An object is something that can represent something in the real world. When you want the object to actually represent something in the real world that object must be instantiated. Instantiation means you must define the characteristics (attributes) of this specific object, usually through a constructor.
Once you have defined these characteristics you now have an instance of an object.
Hope this clears things up.
"A class describes a set of objects called its instances." - The Xerox learning Research Group, "The Smalltalk-80 System", Byte Magazine Volume 06 Number 08, p39, 1981.
What is an Object ?
An object is an instance of a class. Object can best be understood by finding real world examples around you. You desk, your laptop, your car all are good real world examples of an object.
Real world object share two characteristics, they all have state and behaviour. Humans are also a good example of an object, We humans have state/attributes - name, height, weight and behavior - walk, run, talk, sleep, code :P.
What is a Class ?
A class is a blueprint or a template that describes the details of an object. These details are viz
name
attributes/state
operations/methods
class Car
{
int speed = 0;
int gear = 1;
void changeGear(int newGear)
{
gear = newGear;
}
void speedUp(int increment)
{
speed = speed + increment;
}
void applyBrakes(int decrement)
{
speed = speed - decrement;
}
}
Consider the above example, the fields speed and gear will represent the state of the object, and methods changeGear, speedUp and applyBrakes define the behaviour of the Car object with the outside world.
References:
What is an Object ?
What is a Class ?
I think that it is important to point out that there are generally two things. The blueprint and the copies. People tend to name these different things; classes, objects, instances are just some of the names that people use for them. The important thing is that there is the blueprint and copies of it - regardless of the names for them. If you already have the understanding for these two, just avoid the other things that are confusing you.
Lets compare apples to apples. We all know what an apple is. What it looks like. What it tastes like. That is a class. It is the definition of a thing. It is what we know about a thing.
Now go find an apple. That is an instance. We can see it. We can taste it. We can do things with it. It is what we have.
Class = What we know about something. A definition.
Object/Instance = Something that fits that definition that we have and can do things with.
In some cases, the term "object" may be used to describe an instance, but in other cases it's used to describe a reference to an instance. The term "instance" only refers to the actual instance.
For example, a List may be described as a collection of objects, but what it actually holds are references to object instances.
I have always liked the idea that equals the definition of a class as that of an "Abstract Data Type". That is, when you defined a class you're are defining a new type of "something", his data type representation, in terms of primitives and other "somethings", and his behavior in terms of functions and/or methods. (Sorry for the generality and formalism)
Whenever you defined a class you open a new possibility for defining certain entities with its properties and behavior, when you instantiate and/or create a particular object out of it you're actually materializing that possibility.
Sometimes the terms object and instances are interchangeable. Some OOP purists will maintain that everything is an object, I will not complain, but in the real OOP world, we developers use two concepts:
Class: Abstract Data Type sample from which you can derive other ADT and create objects.
Objects: Also called instances, represents particular examples of the data structures and functions represented by a given Abstract Data Type.
Object Oriented Programming is a system metaphor that helps you organize the knowledge your program needs to handle, in a way that will make it easier for you to develop your program. When you choose to program using OOP you pick up your OOP-Googles, and you decide that you will see the problem of the real world as many objects collaborating between themselves, by sending messages. Instead of seeing a Guy driving a Car you see a Guy sending a message to the car indicating what he wants the car to do. The car is a big object, and will respond to that message by sending a message to it's engine or it's wheel to be able to respond properly to what the Driver told him to do in the message, etc...
After you've created your system metaphor, and you are seeing all the reality as objects sending messages, you decide to put all the things your are seeing that are relevant to your problem domain in the PC. There you notice that there are a lot of Guys driving different cards, and it's senseless to program the behavior of each one of them separately because they all behave in the same way... So you can say two things:
All those guys behave in the same way, so I'll create a class called
Driver that will specify who all the Drivers in the world behave,
because they all behave in the same way. (And your are using class based OOP)
Or your could say Hey! The second Driver behaves in the same way as the first Driver, except he likes going a little faster. And the third Driver behaves in the same way as the first Driver, except he likes zigzagging when he drives. (And you use prototype based OOP).
Then you start putting in the computer the information of how all the Drivers behave (or how the first driver behave, and how the second and third differ from that one), and after a while you have your program, and you use the code to create three drivers that are the model you are using inside that PC to refeer to the drivers you saw in the real world. Those 3 drivers that you created inside the PC are instances of either the prototype ( actually the first one is the prototype, the first one might be the prototype himself depending on how you model things) or the class that you created.
The difference between instance and object is that object is the metaphor you use in the real world. You choose to see the guy and the car as objects (It would be incorrect to say that you see them as instances) collaborating between themselves. And then you use it as inspiration to create your code. The instance only exists in your program, after you've created the prototype or the class. The "objects" exist outside the PC because its the mapping you use to unite the real world with the program. It unites the Guy with the instance of Driver you created in the PC. So object and instance are extremely related, but they are not exactly the same (an instance is a "leg" of an object in the program, and the other "leg" is in the real world).
I guess the best answer has already been given away.
Classes are blueprints, and objects are buildings or examples of that blueprint did the trick for me as well.
Sometimes, I'd like to think that classes are templates (like in MS Word), while objects are the documents that use the template.
Extending one of the earlier given examples in this thread...
Consider a scenario - There is a requirement that 5 houses need to be built in a neighbourhood for residential purposes. All 5 houses share a common construction architecture.
The construction architecture is a class.
House is an object.
Each house with people staying in it is an instance.
Soliciting feedback/options/comments regarding a "best" pattern to use for reference data in my services.
What do I mean by reference data?
Let's use Northwind as an example. An Order is related to a Customer in the database. When I implement my Orders Service, in some cases I'll want the reference a "full" Customer from an Order and other cases when I just want a reference to the Customer (for example a Key/Value pair).
For example, if I were doing a GetAllOrders(), I wouldn't want to return a fully filled out Order, I'd want to return a lightweight version of an Order with only reference data for each order's Customer. If I did a GetOrder() method, though, I'd probably want to fill in the Customer details because chances are a consumer of this method might need it. There might be other situations where I might want to ask that the Customer details be filled in during certain method calls, but left out for others.
Here is what I've come up with:
[DataContract]
public OrderDTO
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public CustomerDTO;
//etc..
}
[DataContract]
public CustomerDTO
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public ReferenceInfo ReferenceInfo;
[DataMember(Optional)]
public CustomerInfo CustomerInfo;
}
[DataContract]
public ReferenceInfo
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Key;
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Value;
}
[DataContract]
public CustomerInfo
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public string CustomerID;
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Name;
//etc....
}
The thinking here is that since ReferenceInfo (which is a generic Key/Value pair) is always required in CustomerDTO, I'll always have ReferenceInfo. It gives me enough information to obtain the Customer details later if needed. The downside to having CustomerDTO require ReferenceInfo is that it might be overkill when I am getting the full CustomerDTO (i.e. with CustomerInfo filled in), but at least I am guaranteed the reference info.
Is there some other pattern or framework piece I can use to make this scenario/implementation "cleaner"?
The reason I ask is that although we could simply say in Northwind to ALWAYS return a full CustomerDTO, that might work fine in the simplistic Northwind situation. In my case, I have an object that has 25-50 fields that are reference/lookup type data. Some are more important to load than others in different situations, but i'd like to have as few definitions of these reference types as possible (so that I don't get into "DTO maintenance hell").
Opinions? Feedback? Comments?
Thanks!
We're at the same decision point on our project. As of right now, we've decided to create three levels of DTOs to handle a Thing: SimpleThing, ComplexThing, and FullThing. We don't know how it'll work out for us, though, so this is not yet an answer grounded in reality.
One thing I'm wondering is if we might learn that our services are designed at the "wrong" level. For example, is there ever an instance where we should bust a FullThing apart and only pass a SimpleThing? If we do, does that imply we've inappropriately put some business logic at too high of a level?
Amazon Product Advertising API Web service is a good example of the same problem that you are experiencing.
They use different DTOs to provide callers with more or less detail depending on their circumstances. For example there is the small response group, the large response group and in the middle medium response group.
Having different DTOs is a good technique if as you say you don't want a chatty interface.
It seems like a complicated solution to me. Why not just have a customer id field in the OrderDTO class and then let the application decide at runtime whether it needs the customer data. Since it has the customer id it can pull the data down when it so decides.
I've decided against the approach I was going to take. I think much of my initial concerns were a result of a lack of requirements. I sort of expected this to be the case, but was curious to see how others might have tackled this issue of determining when to load up certain data and when not to.
I am flattening my Data Contract to contain the most used fields of reference data elements. This should work for a majority of consumers. If the supplied data is not enough for a given consumer, they'll have the option to query a separate service to pull back the full details for a particular reference entity (for example a Currency, State, etc). For simple lookups that really are basically Key/Value pairs, we'll be handling them with a generic Key/Value pair Data Contract. I might even use the KnownType attribute for my more specialized Key/Value pairs.
[DataContract]
public OrderDTO
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public CustomerDTO Customer;
//in this case, I think consumers will need currency data,
//so I pass back a full currency item
[DataMember(Required)]
public Currency Currency;
//in this case, I think consumers are not likely to need full StateRegion data,
//so I pass back a "reference" to it
//User's can call a separate service method to get full details if needed, or
[DataMember(Required)]
public KeyValuePair ShipToStateRegion;
//etc..
}
[DataContract]
[KnownType(Currency)]
public KeyValuePair
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Key;
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Value;
//enum consisting of all possible reference types,
//such as "Currency", "StateRegion", "Country", etc.
[DataMember(Required)]
public ReferenceType ReferenceType;
}
[DataContract]
public Currency : KeyValuePair
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public decimal ExchangeRate;
[DataMember(Required)]
public DateTime ExchangeRateAsOfDate;
}
[DataContract]
public CustomerDTO
{
[DataMember(Required)]
public string CustomerID;
[DataMember(Required)]
public string Name;
//etc....
}
Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?
We've faced this problem in object-relational mapping as well. There are situations where we want the full object and others where we want a reference to it.
The difficulty is that by baking the serialization into the classes themselves, the datacontract pattern enforces the idea that there's only one right way to serialize an object. But there are lots of scenarios where you might want to partially serialize a class and/or its child objects.
This usually means that you have to have multiple DTOs for each class. For example, a FullCustomerDTO and a CustomerReferenceDTO. Then you have to create ways to map the different DTOs back to the Customer domain object.
As you can imagine, it's a ton of work, most of it very tedious.
One other possibility is to treat the objects as property bags. Specify the properties you want when querying, and get back exactly the properties you need.
Changing the properties to show in the "short" version then won't require multiple round trips, you can get all of the properties for a set at one time (avoiding chatty interfaces), and you don't have to modify your data or operation contracts if you decide you need different properties for the "short" version.
I typically build in lazy loading to my complex web services (ie web services that send/receive entities). If a Person has a Father property (also a Person), I send just an identifier for the Father instead of the nested object, then I just make sure my web service has an operation that can accept an identifier and respond with the corresponding Person entity. The client can then call the web service back if it wants to use the Father property.
I've also expanded on this so that batching can occur. If an operation sends back 5 Persons, then if the Father property is accessed on any one of those Persons, then a request is made for all 5 Fathers with their identifiers. This helps reduce the chattiness of the web service.