I see Composite Oriented Programming and DCI as interesting techniques
to use within a rest framework, but have run into an issue.
Is it possible to serialize a mixin object and get all it's
properties? For example:
public class IHasOwner
{
string owner();
}
public class HasEngine
{
string engine();
}
Let's say we make a CarComposite object with the two classes above as
mixins. Could I deserialize this CarComposite class to get the
following xml?:
<CarComposite>
<owner></owner>
<engine></engine>
</CarComposite>
I'm curious to how this is handled in general, but with close
attention to .NET, since you canot deserialize Interfaces.
I find that a view- or resource-model is often called for in RESTful services. I.e. a set of dumb data types tailored for the way you want to expose the resource. These do not need to match domain objects. You do need to be able map between the two though. The dumb resource-model is "easy" to serialize.
For the mapping between domain and service model objects AutoMapper can be quite useful.
Related
Is it considered a bad practice? If it's not always a bad practice, when is it appropriate to create classes without attributes or methods?
It is not necessary for a class to contain methods as well as attributes. Suppose a secenerio in which some attributes are publicly defined for the meantime use so we can use this variable from anywhere outside the class. But to use encapsulation it is recommended to attributes to be private.
If you mean always, my answer is no, you shouldn't always do that.
If the language allows you to do so, there must be a reason. Consider the following factory class:
public class Factory : IFactory
{
public const string FactoryName = "StackOverflowFactory";
public IPerson GetPerson(PersonType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case PersonType.Rural:
return new Villager();
case PersonType.Urban:
return new CityPerson();
default:
throw new NotSupportedException(string.Format("{0} does not handle {1}", FactoryName, type));
}
}
}
In this case, a class contains an attribute and a method. And this is normal.
On the other hand, when we're talking about something like passive data structure, the objects and classes that are created to fulfill this kind of purpose, then you should not mix the attributes with the methods because the purpose of those objects is to store data, not manipulate it.
The Good or Bad is always relative, base on how the system is designed, the purpose of the classes, etc. If the system is designed using a pattern A but you violate that pattern when changing the code, then that may be a bad practice. If the class is just for storing data but you add some methods to manipulate it, then that may also be a bad practice too.
What is the right way to create DTOs from business objects?
Who should be responsible for creating them? BO/DTO itself from BO/some static factory?
Where should they reside in code if I have, f.e. some core library and a specific service API library that I need DTO for? In core library next to BO(which seems incorrect)/in specific library?
If I have encapsulated fields in my BO how do DTO grab them? (obviously in case when BO is not responsible for creating DTOs)
As an example assume that I have some Person BO like this:
class Person
{
private int age;
public bool isBigEnough => age > 10;
}
I want age to be an internal state of Person but still I need to communicate my BO to some api. Or having private field in my class that I want to send somewhere already means that it should be public?
Are there any general considerations of how to use DTOs alongside business classes with encapsulated data?
___ Update:
In addition to approaches that #Alexey Groshev mentioned I came accross another one: we separate data of our BO class into some Data class with public accessors. BO wraps this data with its api(probably using composition) and when needed it can return its state as Data class as clone. So dto converter will be able to access Domain object's state but won't be able to modify it(since it will be just a copy).
There're multiple options available, but it would be difficult to recommend anything, because I don't know the details about your project/product. Anyway I'll name a few.
You can use AutoMapper to map BOs to DTOs and vise versa. I personally dislike this approach, because it's quite difficult (but possible) to keep it under control in medium/large sized projects. People don't usually bother to configure mappings properly and just expose internal state of their objects. For example, your isBigEnough would disappear and age would become public. Another potential risk is that people can map DTOs to/from EF/Hibernate objects. You can find some articles which explain why it's considered to be a bad practice.
As you suggested, a BO can create DTO by itself, but how would you implement this approach? You can add methods or factory methods to your entities, e.g. public PersonDto ToDto(). Or you can add an interface, e.g. public interface IDtoConvertable<T> { T ToDto(); }, and choose which entity or aggregate root will implement it. Your Person class would look like this class Person : IDtoConvertable<PersonDto> {... public PersonDto ToDto() {...} }. In both cases DTO namespace/assembly must to accessible by entities which sometimes can be a problem, but usually it's not a biggie. (Make sure that DTOs cannot access entities which is much worse.)
(C#) Another option is to return a delegate which creates DTO. I decided to separate it from (2), because entity doesn't really create DTO by itself, but rather exposes a functionality which creates DTO. So, you could have something like this public Func<PersonDto> ToDto() {...}. You might want to have an interface as in (2), but you get the idea, don't you? Do I like this approach? No, because it makes code unreadable.
As you see, there are more questions than answers. I'd recommend you to make a few experiments and check what works for you (your project) and what doesn't.
I think the answer to question 5 will address the other questions too.
Are there any general considerations of how to use DTOs alongside business classes with encapsulated data?
Remember, a DTO is solely to transfer data. Do not concern yourself with implementing any kind of rules in the DTO. All it is used for is to move data from one subsystem to another (NOT between classes of the same subsystem). How that data is used in the destination system is out of your control -- although as the God programmer you inherently know how it is going to be used, DO NOT let that knowledge influence your design -- and therefore there should be no assumptions expressed as behaviour or knowledge accessors -- so, no isBigEnough.
I have an object that I would like to create. This object is composed of other objects that I don't want the client class to be responsible for creating. There are lots of validation rules that must pass before the object can be created.
So I would like to abstract away the creation of this complex object into a "factory" class. I have 2 questions really, the first is purely about semantics:-
What should I call the class which is creating my object? The factory method pattern and abstract factory pattern are both related to abstracting away creation of concrete classes of different types. However, I'm creating an object of a single type, so using the term factory might be confusing?
Is this an appropriate solution? Are there any patterns/examples of this being done?
Thanks in advance for any help/guidance.
You can use the term factory because we all use it in its broadest sense unless we use a more unique name like Factory Method design pattern or Abstract Factory design pattern.
Builder pattern is typically used if you have an object build process that should still be used if the same master steps should be used in creating different types of objects. But in your case you just have one type. So there's no need for a better solution since there's no special problem to solve. Just do the validation in the simplest form you can.
Problem:
WCF contract objects cannot implement 2 types of lists (ie: List and List).
Long-winded explanation:
I'm building a WCF service on top of an existing core system, and I'm trying to work out the best way to implement some of my business objects.
The core system utilizes interfaces for all business objects - Person management functionality, for instance, requires that I pass in an object which implements IPerson. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
The goal is to have a contact object (Person) which can be used on the service side of things, and also implements IPerson so that it can be passed into the core without requiring a conversion layer. This all works just fine for items like Person.
The issue comes in for lists: a method in the core, for instance, might require a IPersonList to be passed in, and as anyone who's dealt with inherited generics will know, List does not inherit from IList.
In our currently running ASMX service, we implement this with some up/down casting in the web objects. "WebPerson" will inherit from List, and implement IList explicitly so that the IList properties do not show up on the WSDL.
In WCF, however, if you try to use this same object, you will get the following error:
Type 'Cssi.IBroker.Service.Cssi.Contracts.PersonList' with CollectionDataContractAttribute attribute is an invalid collection type since it has multiple definitions of interface 'IList`1'.
Apparently, now that the new WCF serializer knows how to serialize IList, it's no longer able to ignore the second explicit implementation.
If possible, I'd like to avoid creating a PersonList object just for the contracts and then converting to and from an IPersonList object for each call. Changing the core business logic to use concrete objects designed just for the WCF services isn't an option.
Help!
I ended up deciding the best route was a set of dedicated objects used only for the contracts. With them being dedicated to one task, I was able to keep them cleaner without having to compromise my internal design for the sake of the WSDL. For the WSDL objects themselves, I ended up using arrays instead of IList.
The extra step of conversion is a bit cumbersome, but less than trying to keep my core objects WCF friendly would be.
I remember back when MS released a forum sample application, the design of the application was like this:
/Classes/User.cs
/Classes/Post.cs
...
/Users.cs
/Posts.cs
So the classes folder had just the class i.e. properties and getters/setters.
The Users.cs, Post.cs, etc. have the actual methods that access the Data Access Layer, so Posts.cs might look like:
public class Posts
{
public static Post GetPostByID(int postID)
{
SqlDataProvider dp = new SqlDataProvider();
return dp.GetPostByID(postID);
}
}
Another more traditional route would be to put all of the methods in Posts.cs into the class definition also (Post.cs).
Splitting things into 2 files makes it much more procedural doesn't it?
Isn't this breaking OOP rules since it is taking the behavior out of the class and putting it into another class definition?
If every method is just a static call straight to the data source, then the "Posts" class is really a Factory. You could certainly put the static methods in "Posts" into the "Post" class (this is how CSLA works), but they are still factory methods.
I would say that a more modern and accurate name for the "Posts" class would be "PostFactory" (assuming that all it has is static methods).
I guess I wouldn't say this is a "procedural" approach necessarily -- it's just a misleading name, you would assume in the modern OO world that a "Posts" object would be stateful and provide methods to manipulate and manage a set of "Post" objects.
Well it depends where and how you define your separation of concerns. If you put the code to populate the Post in the Post class, then your Business Layer is interceded with Data Access Code, and vice versa.
To me it makes sense to do the data fetching and populating outside the actual domain object, and let the domain object be responsible for using the data.
Are you sure the classes aren't partial classes. In which case they really aren't two classes, just a single class spread across multiple files for better readability.
Based on your code snippet, Posts is primarily a class of static helper methods. Posts is not the same object as Post. Instead of Posts, a better name might be PostManager or PostHelper. If you think of it that way, it may help you understand why they broke it out that way.
This is also an important step for a decoupling (or loosely coupling) you applications.
What's anti-OOP or pro-OOP depends entirely on the functionality of the software and what's needed to make it work.