I'm designing a layered architecture (Service/Business Logic Layer, Data Access Layer) and am struggling with the intersection of a few problems.
Entity Framework 4.1 does not support interfaces directly
My Interfaces contain collections of other interfaces with read/write properties
This means using an implementing class won't work either, since it would still refers to another interface type
Example (please excuse the poorly written code, this is ad-hoc from my brain):
Data Access Layer
public interface IEmployer
{
string Name { get; set; }
ICollection<IEmployee> Employees { get; set; }
}
public interface IEmployee
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Employer : IEmployer
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<IEmployee> Employees { get; set; }
}
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DataManager
{
public IEmployer GetEmployer(string name) { ... }
public IEmployee CreateEmployeeObject(string name) { ... }
public void Save(IEmployer employer) { ... }
public void Save(IEmployee employee) { ... }
}
Service Layer
[DataContract]
public class Employee
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class HireService
{
public void HireNewEmployee(Employee newEmployee, string employerName)
{
DataManager dm = new DataManager();
IEmployer employer = dm.GetEmployer(employerName);
IEmployee employee = dm.CreateEmployeeObject(newEmployee.Name);
dm.Save(employee);
employer.Employees.Add(employee);
dm.Save(employer);
}
}
Without EF, the above works fine. The IEmployee type is used in the service layer, and does not conflict with the Employee data contract type. However, EF cannot use an interface, so I would be required to use class instead of an interface.
I see a few options:
Change IEmployer/IEmployee to classes, leaving the same names
Change IEmployer/IEmployee to classes, rename to EmployerDAL/EmployeeDAL
Change IEmployer/IEmployee to classes, rename to Employer/Employee, sprinkle using EmployerDL = DataLayer.Employer at the beginning of any service classes using it
What naming convention should I follow for class names which are defined in both the business and data layer?
Similar question to this: What's the naming convention for classes in the DataAccess Project? except that EF causes a problem with interfaces.
Actually the class defined in your DAL should be the one used in your business layer - those are your real domain objects. Classes exposed from your business layer are just data transfer objects so if you want to build any convention you should imho rename your data contracts.
Anyway the naming convention is something really subjective. Choose the way which best fits your needs and be consistent in that naming.
Related
I am started with my first Dapper Dal project.
I have three projects:
- Website (MVC)
- DataLayer (Dapper)
- Model (Poco Classes)
I want to add validation to my model but i also want to use clean poco classes for my datalayer. My datalayer use dapper to map my poco classes to the database.
I have searched the internet but i can't find a good answer.
My question is:
Where do i add my validation?
- In a seppetated project with classes that extend my poco classes or is there a different way?
If you want a clean separation between your DAL classes and your MVC classes, then you can do just that by, for instance, using ViewModels in your MVC-project. The ViewModel would have the properties and validations that works best with what you are presenting in the browser. Your controller would be responsible for mapping the data between the DAL classes and the ViewModels. Automapper is a very good tool for just that.
It would look a bit like the following:
DAL:
public class MyDapperClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
ViewModel:
public class MyViewModelClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[StringLength(50),Required]
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
Controller:
// using AutoMapper;
public class MyController : Controller
{
public MyController()
{
// Set up AutoMapper to be able to map your class
Mapper.CreateMap<MyDapperClass, MyViewModelClass>();
}
public ActionResult MyAction()
{
var dalObject = DAL.GetObject();
var viewModel = Mapper.Map<MyViewModelClass>(dalObject);
return View(viewModel);
}
}
We are using Fluent NH with convention based mapping. I have the following:
public class Foo() : Entity
{
public BarComponent PrimaryBar { get; set; }
public BarComponent SecondaryBar { get; set; }
}
public class BarComponent
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I have it to the point where it will create the foo table with a single name field. I've tried the following Override and it doesn't work.
public class FooOverride : IAutoMappingOverride<Foo>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<Foo> mapping)
{
mapping.Component(x => x.PrimaryBar).ColumnPrefix("primary");
mapping.Component(x => x.SecondaryBar).ColumnPrefix("secondary");
}
}
Do I really need to do a full override mapping or can what I have here be made to work somehow?
I ran into this a couple of years ago when I started with FNH. It's one of the few scenarios I've seen where FNH Automapping does not "just work".
The approach that was suggested to me at the time, which I've used successfully (with entities however, not components) is to create empty, intermediate entities, and reference them in the descendant class.
In your case, you could create two new, empty classes that inherit from BarComponent (say, PrimaryBarComponent and SecondaryBarComponent).
Then, in your Foo class, declare them as:
public PrimaryBarComponent PrimaryBar { get; set; }
public SecondaryBarComponent SecondaryBar { get; set; }
This is a kluge, in my opinion, but it works fine with entities and lists of entities, and does not require any overrides or conventions.
I've never used components with FNH, so I don't know if a similar approach will work, but it might be worth investigating.
I ended up getting the way I have described in the question working. It turned out to be a problem with our AutoMappingConfiguration which inherits from DefaultAutomappingConfiguration. We weren't identifying Components properly.
A custom type (e.g. Engine) is defined in two different namespaces on WCF server side, which is exposed to WCF client as Engine, Engine1. How to set up so that the exposed types have the same name, Engine in this case.
Below is my example code:
namespace WcfServiceLibrary1
{
[ServiceContract]
interface ICar
{
[OperationContract]
void RepairMotorCycle(MotorCycle motorCycle);
[OperationContract]
void RepairTwoDoorCar(TwoDoorCar Car);
}
public class Car:ICar
{
public void RepairMotorCycle(MotorCycle motorCycle)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void RepairTwoDoorCar(TwoDoorCar Car)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
}
namespace WcfServiceLibrary1.MC
{
public class MotorCycle
{
public Engine Engine { get; set; }
}
public class Engine { }
}
namespace WcfServiceLibrary1.C
{
public class TwoDoorCar
{
public Engine Engine { get; set; }
}
public class Engine { }
}
Below is the WCF client for Engine:
[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.Runtime.Serialization", "4.0.0.0")]
[System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute(Name="Engine", Namespace="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/WcfServiceLibrary1.MC")]
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public partial class Engine : object, System.Runtime.Serialization.IExtensibleDataObject, System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanged {
}
[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.Runtime.Serialization", "4.0.0.0")]
[System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute(Name="Engine", Namespace="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/WcfServiceLibrary1.C")]
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public partial class Engine1 : object, System.Runtime.Serialization.IExtensibleDataObject, System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanged {
}
Please note that both MotoCycle and TwoDoorCar contain a large number of custom type that have the same name but different function. Thus, it is tedious to change the name on client side (e.g. change Engine1 to Engine for all occurences). Also it is tedious to solve it by using class inheritance. It is ok to define two custom types that have the same name, which might need less work.
Any idea would be very much appreciated!
Edit
*Possible Solution*
Put it into separate interface, as below
[ServiceContract]
interface ICar1
{
[OperationContract]
void RepairMotorCycle(MotorCycle motorCycle);
}
[ServiceContract]
interface ICar2
{
[OperationContract]
void RepairTwoDoorCar(TwoDoorCar Car);
}
This will put the same custom type in different namespace on client side.
If your Engines represent an identical concept, you could define one Engine in a dedicated namespace and reference it from WcfServiceLibrary1.MCand WcfServiceLibrary1.C.
Your example however suggests that you should rather gather your vehicles into a single namespace and make use of inheritance.
namespace WcfServiceLibrary.Vehicles
{
public class Engine
{
}
public abstract class Vehicle
{
public Engine { get; set; }
}
public class Car : Vehicle
{
}
pulic class Motorcycle : Vehicle
{
}
}
Moving your Engine to a common namespace could look like this:
namespace WcfServiceLibrary.Common
{
public class Engine
{
}
}
Your "Motorcycle" library
using WcfServiceLibrary.Common
namespace WcfServiceLibrary.MC
{
public class Motorcycle
{
public Engine Engine { get; set; }
}
}
... and your "Car" library
using WcfServiceLibrary.Common
namespace WcfServiceLibrary.C
{
public class Car
{
public Engine Engine { get; set; }
}
}
You won't have to change your Engine property.
First of all, try and share your code libraries between the server and client. This link will tell you how to do it for Silverlight, if you are not using Silverlight then check this SO search link for a variety of posts and answers on the subject.
Secondly, if you cannot share the libraries then editing the generated client class files will work (just delete the definition of Engine1 and fix up any references to it to point to the Engine), although you will lose the changes if you regenerate the proxy.
What's the practical way of serializing an instance of subclass by using DataContractSerializer?
For example, here are the data types:
[DataContract]
public class Car
{
public Car()
{
Wheels = new Collection<Wheel>();
}
[DataMember]
public Collection<Wheel> Wheels { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public abstract class Wheel
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class MichelinWheel : Wheel
{
[DataMember]
public string Wheel1Test { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class BridgeStoneWheel : Wheel
{
[DataMember]
public string Wheel2Test { get; set; }
}
Then here is the code that creates a car with two differen wheels:
Car car = new Car();
MichelinWheel w1 = new MichelinWheel { Name = "o1", Wheel1Test = "o1 test" };
BridgeStoneWheel w2 = new BridgeStoneWheel { Name = "o2", Wheel2Test = "o2 test" };
car.Wheels.Add(w1);
car.Wheels.Add(w2);
Now if I try to serialize the car by using DataContractSerializer, I will get an exception that says MichelinWheel is not expected. And I have to modify the Wheel class like this to make it work:
[DataContract]
[KnownType(typeof(MichelinWheel))]
[KnownType(typeof(BridgeStoneWheel))]
public abstract class Wheel
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
But this approach is not practical, because I am not able to list all kinds of wheels before they are created. And changing the Wheel class every time after a new brand of wheel is created is also not practical, because they might by created in third-party code.
So, what is the practical approach of serializing an instance of a subclass when using DataContractSerializer?
Thanks
Check this article using DataContractResolver from WCF 4. You can also use KnownTypeAttribute with passing name of a method that will use reflection to get all types. Anyway service requires that all types are known before it starts.
There are several ways to make known types available to the service.
The simplest you have outlined above, but obviously this requires you to recompile when new types are added, and depending on your configuration can make it awkward to avoid circular dependencies.
You can also configure the KnownTypes:
through the service configuration file (service restart only required),
add them as service known types provided through a static method on the service interface which you could get through reflection as Ladislav Mrnka has indicated (you could probably reflect over all loaded assemblies and return all types that have the DataContact attribute on them as known types, but I couldn't find an example of that.)
implement your own way of getting them (perhaps through some bespoke configuration elements in the config file or just through a text file)
With FluentNHibernate I have mapped a UserPreference entity which references the GeneralPreference, GeneralPreferenceOption, and Profile entities:
public class UserPreference
{
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
public virtual Profile Profile { get; set; }
public virtual GeneralPreference Preference { get; set; }
public virtual GeneralPreferenceOption Value { get; set; }
}
It's easy enough to map a list of UserPreference on my Profile entity, but what I actually would like to do is wrap this list inside another class so that I can simplify operations concerning a user's given preferences:
public class Preferences
{
public IList<UserPreferences> UserPreferences{get;set;}
public Language Language {
{
//look up the language preference here
}
}
This kind of feels like a Component, but Components were not created for this type of scenario. Does anyone have any pointers on how I might map this?
I figured out a way to do this by mapping a private property on my Profile Entity. Using the techniques from the Fluent NHibernate wiki on mapping private properties (http://wiki.fluentnhibernate.org/Fluent_mapping_private_properties) I map a collection of UserPreference on my Profile Entity. Then I create another class PropertyHandler which takes an IEnumerable as a constructor parameter and make an instance of this a public property on Profile as well:
public class Profile
{
private PreferenceHandler _preferenceHandler;
get { return _preferenceHandler ?? (_preferenceHandler = new PreferenceHandler(UserPreferences)); }
private IEnumerable<UserPreference> UserPreferences { get; set; }
public static class Expressions
{
public static readonly Expression<Func<Profile, IEnumerable<UserPreference>>> UserPreferences = x => x.UserPreferences;
}
}
Notice the nested static class. It's used to enable mapping of a private property with FluentNHibernate.
The mapping class looks something like this:
public class ProfileMappings : ClassMap<Profile>
{
public ProfileMappings()
{
//... other mappings
HasMany(Profile.Expressions.UserPreferences);
}
}
I can now use the PreferenceHandler class to create helper methods over my collection of UserPreference.
An alternative is to build extension methods for IEnumberable. This works, but I decided not to do this because
1) I'm not really extending the IEnumerable functionality and
2) my helper methods disappear inamongst all the other IEnumerable extension methods making the whole thing a bit cluttered.