I'm experimenting with the new Umbraco 5 hive, and I'm kinda a bit confused.
I'm plugging in an existing Linq to SQL services layer, which I developed for a webforms site.
I don't know much about the repository pattern, my services handle all connections with the data context, and work very well.
I have made a few repositories that plug in to the hive, and handle conversion of my entities to the Umbraco TypedEntity type.
These repositiories reference my existing services layer, to retrieve, add, update and delete. The services also handle other entity specific functions, which will not be used by the hive.
Now, it's nice to plug in these services, and just reference them in the hive repositories, but it seems I may be doing things the wrong way round, according to the offical repository pattern as I have read about.
I know there's no hard fast rules, but I would appreciate comments on what I'm doing to achieve this functionality.
I've asked this here instead of the Umbraco forum, as I want a wider perspective.
Cheers.
I personally feel that the Hive is overkill. With the ability to use your own classes directly within razor macros, I think the best approach is to forego the hive altogether and simply use your classes. Why would you trade all of the power of your existing service just to make it fit into the hive interface?
If you're writing a library for other Umbraco developers, you may need to do this, but it's my personal opinion that the hive is over-engineered at worst and a layer of abstraction aimed at newish developers at best.
So, if I were to advise you, I would say to consider the more general principles: "Keep It Simple" and "You Aren't Gonna Need It". If the interface they give you offers a tangible benefit, implement it. If not, consider what you really gain for all of that work.
Related
CakePHP Applications being made in our company tends to become unmaintainable as it becomes more complex. I figured that one specific reason is inheritance which makes the functions in child classes depends a lot on it's parent classes and vice-versa (implementing template method pattern). Why is CakePHP designed this way and not friendly in using Dependency Injection, Strategies, or Factory patterns?
There is not such a bad design as you claim in the framework. Sure, there are probably things that could be done better but I would like to see a more substantial critic including solid arguments and examples. I assume you're not using the framework as it was intended.
Let me quote the first paragraph from this page.
According to Eric Evans, Domain-driven design (DDD) is not a technology or a methodology. It’s a different way of thinking about how to organize your applications and structure your code. This way of thinking complements very well the popular MVC architecture. The domain model provides a structural view of the system. Most of the time, applications don’t change, what changes is the domain. MVC, however, doesn’t really tell you how your model should be structured. That’s why some frameworks don’t force you to use a specific model structure, instead, they let your model evolve as your knowledge and expertise grows.
You're not showing code (for a reason?) so I guess your problem comes from stuffing everything into the table objects in src/Model/Table/ or doing something similar.
But you're totally free to create a folder structure like
/src/Service
/src/Model/Domain
and then simply instantiate services as you need them in your controller actions. A service could be for example \App\Service\User\Registration and using objects from App\Model\Domain\User.
I agree that the framework in fact doesn't provide any recommendation or template structure for how this could look like. For exactly this topic there is a discussion going on here. Because of a lack of such a structure I've started working on a plugin that provides this. The plugin doesn't require but suggest the usage of DI containers for the people who want them.
Given the whole fancy topic around DI and DDD so far I would say there is not the one way to get things right but different paths as long as the code is easy to maintain. And honestly, as long as this goal is archived I really don't care about how you call it. :) I think many people tend do make this topic to academic instead of simply trying to be practical.
Not everybody is even needing that structure. It depends on if you're building a RAD CRUD application or a more complex app. Not every application needs a DDD approach. There are so many shades of gray when it comes to design the business layer, no matter how the framework would do it, somebody would always complain about it.
I personally almost never missed a DI container in CakePHP, not even in the biggest project having more than ~560 database tables which was a hospital management solution and it just worked well.
I would suggest you to ask a more specific question about your approach how you structured your code and showing your structure and code and then asking for advice on how to improve it instead of blaming the tool you're using in the first place without providing context.
Unfortunately CakePHP v3 can not compare to the Zend3/Laminas, Symfony or Laravel.It is 7-8 years behind the other frameworks.If you are using cake for years or it is your 1st and last framework it is normal to not realise that.But if you have to use it after Zend 3... cake seems like really bad ecosystem.
Bad documentation
Bad ORM
Poor Routing system
Bad Templating engine
Bad idea to mix Data Mapper and Active Record
DIC is totally missing
Components - not good but not terrible
...
And many more thinks that should not be underestimated like - lack of GOOD tutorials, pluigns/addons/packages
The above thinks make developers to follow bad practices that adds a lot of technical depth.
If you care just for - it works! But not how it works and why it is bad, cake will fit ok for you.
Cake can not scale as good as Symfony/Laminas if you are doing big project.(yea AWS/GC can help for scaling a lot of thinks but not for scaling source code)
Cake doesn't allow you rapid development like Laravel/Symfony for decent project.
I'm wondering who and WHY would start a new project today using Cake as it has zero benefits over the other frameworks.
Probably only devs who used only Cake for last decade and do not want to start learning new technologies or devs that thinks SOLID is just a fancy hype with zero benefits like design patterns, DRY and KISS
CakePHP framework supplies user interaction with databases using Active record, it means that exist a high coupling between business layer and database layer which has negative effects in unit testing and because of that the framework is not friendly with Dependency Injection. The same issue happens with Factory pattern, high coupling mentioned before makes more difficult use simulated objects in unit testing.
Hope it helps!
Alberto
This is probably a long shot.
In the .NET world, has anyone found an ORM (Commercial or Open) that has the flexibility of NHibernate to support domain driven design with good Linq support? Linq to sql is dead, Entity Framework doesnt yet support POCO's, lazy load or object first development very well, and none of the old stand bys such as LLBLGen seem to either.
Anyone find anything new and exciting in the ORM market?
Thanks!
See ORMBattle.NET - it won't exactly answer your question (btw, I hardly admit this is possible), but there is some info on quality of LINQ support.
Note (or disclaimer): I'm one of persons related to creation of ORMBattle.NET, as well as one of DataObjects.Net authors.
Which version of the .NET Framework are you talking about? 3.5? 4.0?
There are quite a few ORMs out there and some of the commercial ones may in fact meet your needs (or be working on new releases that meet your needs). Competing against both NHibernate and Entity Framework from a commercial perspective is pretty daunting. Microsoft made it much harder than necessary to write a Linq provider, which is why so few ORMs have one. Writing a domain driven design oriented ORM that supports multiple database vendors is also a pretty steep hill to climb.
NHibernate certainly has all the momentum right now, but that doesn't mean it's invincible. It's hard to compete with free & open source software that has a multi-year head start, even for a company with the financial resources of Microsoft.
I think you may just need to be patient. NHibernate's Linq provider is improving and the other ORM vendors are working hard on improving their offerings as well. Things could change significantly in the next two years or so.
No, I don't know of any. Because NHibernate is popular and very good at what it does, and EF is likely to pick up most of the remainder (particularly devs that don't want to stray from Microsoft-supplied frameworks), the barrier to entry for a new player is very high. Another ORM would need to add something significant over and above what NHibernate currently offers in order to get any reasonable level of interest.
If there was an open source project that wanted to deliver better Linq support in an ORM, in my opinion it would have greater success contributing to NHibernate Linq rather than attempting to build its own framework from scratch.
I wouldn't call it a "NHibernate killer", but SubSonic works well. It's simple to use, allows you to choose between using the Active Record pattern and the Repository pattern. It supports POCOs, lets you use object-first development and setting up lazy-loading is easy enough.
CQRS could be considered an NHibernate killer. The basic premise is that your domain objects are not used to support your read model and application queries. As such, you can start using something more like a document store to hold your aggregate or even use event sourcing. To update your read model, you have it listen to the events published by your aggregate so that it can update itself accordingly. Using this architectural style we have been able to eliminate the our reliance upon NHibernate. Now if we decide to use an RDBMS, it's because of the strengths of the database rather than as the default choice.
I'm exposing some CRUD methods through WCF service, for some data objects persisted in a database through NHibernate. Is it a good approach to use NHibernate classes as data contracts, or is it better to wrap them or replace them with some other data contracts? What is your approach?
Our team just went through a good few months debating this design point, so I've got a lot of links to share ;-)
Short answer: You "should" translate from your NHibernate classes into a domain model.
Long answer: I think the answer to this is a matter of principle. If you ever want to be interoperable, you should not use Datasets as your DTOs (I love Hanselman's post on this). I'm not saying that it's never a good idea; clearly people have had success doing so. Just know that you are cutting corners and it's a risky proposition.
If you have complete control over the classes you are pushing the data into, you could build a nice domain model and just map the NHibernate data into those classes. You will more than likely have serious issues doing that, as IList<> (which a <bag> maps to) is not serializeable. You'd have to write your own serializer, or use something like NetDataContractSerializer, but you lose interoperability.
You will need to measure the amount of work involved in building some wrapper classes, and the translation between, but then you have complete flexibility in what your domain model will look like. Then, you're able to do things (as we have done) like code generation for your NHibernate maps and objects. Then, your data contracts serve as an abstraction from your data, as they should.
P.S. You might want to take a look at ADO.NET Data Services, which is a RESTful way to expose your data, which, at this point, seems to be the most interoperable choice to expose your data.
You would not want to expose your domain model directly, but map the domain to some kind of message as it hits the process boundary. You could leverage NHibernate to do the mapping work for you. In this case you would have 2 mappings, one for you domain model and another for your lightweight messages.
I don't have direct experience in doing this, but I have sent Datasets across via WCF before and that works just fine. I think your biggest issue in using NHibernete as data objects over WCF will be a lack of interoperability (as is also the case when using Datasets). Not only does the client have to use .NET, the client must also use NHibernate. This goes against SOA principles, but if you know for sure that you won't be reusing this component then there's not a great reason not to.
It's at least worth a try.
In Jackrabbit I have experienced two ways to save my POJOs into repository nodes for storage in the Jackrabbit JCR:
writing my own layer
and
using Apache Graffito
Writing my own code has proven time consuming and labor intensive (had to write and run a lot of ugly automated tests) though quite flexible.
Using Graffito has been a disappointment because it seems to be a "dead" project stuck in 2006
What are some better alternatives?
Another alternative is to completely skip an OCM framework and simply use javax.jcr.Node as a very flexible DAO itself. The fundamental reason why OCM frameworks exist is because with RDBMS you need a mapping from objects to the relational model. With JCR, which is already very object-oriented (node ~= object), this underlying reason is gone. What is left is that with DAOs you can restrict what your programmers can access in their code (incl. the help of autocompletion). But this approach does not really leverage the JCR concept, which means schema-free and flexible programming. Using the JCR API directly in your code is the best way to follow that concept.
Imagine you want to add a new property to an existing node/object later in the life of your application - with an OCM framework you have to modify it as well and make sure it still works properly. With direct access to nodes it is simply a single point of change. I know, this is a good way to get problems with typos in eg. property names; but this fear is not really backed by reality, since you will in most cases very quickly notice typos or non-matching names when you test your application. A good solution is to use string constants for the common node or property names, even as part of your APIs if you expose the JCR API across them. This still gives you the flexibility to quickly add new properties without having to adopt OCM layers.
For having some constraints on what is allowed or what is mandatory (ie. "semi-schema") you can use node types and mixins (since JCR 2.0 you can also change the node type for existing content): thus you can handle this completely on the repository level and don't have to care about typing and constraints inside your application code - apart from catching the exceptions ;-)
But, of course, this choice depends on your requirements and personal preferences.
You might want to have a look at Jackrabbit OCM that is alive and kickin. Of course another way is to manually serialize/deserialize the POJOs. For that there are many different options. Question is whether you need fix schema to query the objects in JCR. If you just want to serialize into XML then XStream is a very painless way to do so. If you need a more fix schema there is also Betwixt from Apache Commons.
It depends on your needs. When you directly use javax.jcr.node, it means your code is heavily coupled to the underlying mechanism. In medium and even some small sized projects, this is not a good idea. Obviously the question will be how to go from the Node to your own domain model. The problem is quite similar as with going from Jdbc ResultSet to your own domain model. Mind you, I mean from a technical point of view the problem is similar. From a functional point of view, there are huge differences between using JDBC and JCR.
Another deciding factor is whether you can impose a structure in your JCR content or not. Some application domains can (but still match better with JCR than JDBC), in other domains the content may be highly unstructured in nature. In such case OCM is clearly overkill. I'd still advice to write your own wrapper layer around javax.jcr.* classes.
There's also https://github.com/ilikeorangutans/omf, a very flexible object to JCR mapper. Unfortunately it doesn't have write support yet. However we're successfully using this framework in a large CMS installation.
There is also the JCROM project at http://code.google.com/p/jcrom/. That project went dormant for a couple of years, but there have been a few new releases as of summer 2013.
What are the opinions of the software developers who have used Spring.NET and NHibernate in their projects? In couple of our projects in the company where I work, we have used these third party tools very extensively and we have gained tremendous productivity. A little caveat is that it is a little challenging for junior .Net Developer to grasp the concept.
Imo, Spring.Net and NHibernate go hand in hand: If you master the learning curve you will be very pleased when Spring is used for (almost transparent) transaction handling for NHibernate, Dependency Injection as well as Db:Provider handling.
NHibernate (or similar ORM's) can be extremely helpful with "greenfield" development, where the domain object model can be designed properly, and then the database schema and NHibernate mappings can be code-generated to match the model. On the other hand, NHibernate can be very tough to apply to a legacy or poorly normalized database. Although it has support for handling some unusual data structures, the learning curve is much higher for those techniques.
I can't say much about Spring.Net except that in 2007, our team tried to implement it into an existing, complex solution to handle DB transactions and entity validation, but we scrapped the idea after a week of work. Our resident Spring/Java expert concluded that Spring.Net was a couple versions behind Spring and wasn't mature enough to handle the use cases in our project. Disclaimer: not sure what version of Spring.Net that was, so things may have improved recently.
There has lot of benefits using spring.net/nHibernate.
For data access you are able to take full advantage of nHibernate ORM with lazy loading, database independent programming, easy save load update delete your entities. No need to write any query to do that. That is why after designing a database and after development if any change is required at any state of development it is very much easy to change.
Dependency Injection(DI) helps to separate the UI and business logic. That is why any time you are able to change your graphical user interface without breaking any business logic. Same way if you need any change at business logic then need only build business layer. And it is also configurable.
Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) is another feature of Spring.Net. It helps logging application, dynamic method interception allow more control over method call. It makes easy to authorize application. Declarative transaction management is a nice feature to manage transactions. You do not need to write code for start stop database connection. Just write at configuration file at which method you want to maintain transaction. So at large scale project it will save lot of time and will give you more flexibility over transaction management.
Spring webservice is very easy to write and consume from a client. Not need to add any custom attribute, no WSDL. You can intercept every method call, you are able to add advice like logging advice, authentication/authorization advice.
Overall it save approximately 33% of development time, make application more maintainable, highly configurable.