WCF serialization and Value object pattern in Domain Driven Design - wcf

The book Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans describes pattern called value object. One of the important characteristics of a value object is that it is immutable.
As an example I have a value object "Clinic" which must have a name and an id. To make it a value object I do not provide setters on name and id. Also to make sure that there is not invalid instance I take name and id in a constructor and do not provide at parameter less constructor.
public class Clinic
{
public Clinic(string name, string id)
{
Name = name;
Id = id;
}
public string Name{get; private set;}
public string Id{get; private set;}
}
The problem is that when I try to return this object from a WCF Service I get an exception that the object does not have parameter less constructor and the properties do not have public setters. I want to avoid adding parameter less constructor and public setters because then my domain model pattern goes for a toss. How can I get around this problem?
Regards,
Unmesh

I had a similar problem with serializing immutable types before, in the end I decided to implement the ISerializable interface and use the SerializationInfo to store & retrieve the private variables at both ends of the serialization/deserialization process:
http://theburningmonk.com/2010/04/net-tips-making-a-serializable-immutable-struct/
I just built and run a test app using the same technique and it seems to work for me. So in terms of changes to your Clinic class you could change it to:
[Serializable]
public class Clinic : ISerializable
{
public Clinic(string name, string id)
{
Name = name;
Id = id;
}
public Clinic(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
{
Name= info.GetString("Name");
Id= info.GetString("Id");
}
public string Name{get; private set;}
public string Id{get; private set;}
[SecurityPermission(SecurityAction.Demand, SerializationFormatter = true)]
public void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
{
info.AddValue("Name", Name);
info.AddValue("Id", Id);
}
}
This will solve the problem you're having passing the data back from WCF. But from a design point of view, I agree with what Ladislav is saying and typically you will want to separate your domain objects with objects purely intended for message passing (DataTransferObjects), and in that case here's an example of how you MIGHT approach it:
// the domain object (NOT EXPOSED through the WCF service)
public class Clinic
{
public Clinic(string name, string id)
{
Name = name;
Id = id;
}
public string Name{ get; private set;}
public string Id{ get; private set;}
// other methods encapsulating some business logic, etc.
...
}
// the corresponding DTO object for the domain object Clinic
// this is the type exposed through the WCF layer, that the client knows about
[DataContract]
public class ClinicDTO
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Id { get; set; }
}
// WCF service contract, NOTE it returns ClinicDTO instead of Clinic
[ServiceContract]
public interface IClinicService
{
[OperationContract]
ClinicDTO GetClinicById(string id);
}
To ease the pain of converting from Clinic to ClinicDTO, you could either add a method on Clinic to do this or implement an implicit/explicit converter. I've got an example on how to do this here:
http://theburningmonk.com/2010/02/controlling-type-conversion-in-c/
Hope this helps!

The problem is that your value object is not serializable. How do you plan to use the service? Do you plan to share domain objects / value objects with your clients? If yes than it IMO violates your domain driven desing - only business layer should be able to work with domain objects and call their methods. If you don't want to share objects you will probably create proxy by add service reference which will generate data contrats for the client. These contrats will have public parameterless constructor and all properties settable (and no domain methods).
If you want to have real Domain driven design you should not expose your domain objects in WCF. Instead you should create set of DTO and expose those DTOs. Service layer will be responsible of converting those DTOs to Domain objects / value objects and vice-versa.

Related

DataContract classes uninitialized at client side

I have the following class I'd like to send from my WCF (C#) service to my client (WPF):
[DataContract]
public class OutputAvailableEventArgs
{
[DataMember]
public int ID { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Message { get; private set; }
[DataMember]
public bool IsError { get; private set; }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id) : this(id, false, "") { }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id, string output) : this(id, false, output) { }
public OutputAvailableEventArgs(int id, bool isError, string output)
{
ID = id;
IsError = isError;
Message = output;
}
}
It's used by the service as follows:
var channel = OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<IClientCallback>();
channel.OutputAvailable(new OutputAvailableEventArgs(1, false, "some message"));
At the client side, the members get their default values.
I tried marking them with IsRequired attribute but now the OutputAvailable at the client is not called. The code at the service side seems to run smoothly (I didn't notice anything with the debugger).
How can I transfer a DataContract class with WCF while maintaining the members' values?
(I saw solutions that suggested to use OnSerialized and OnDeserialized but I don't need just a default constructor.)
I saw many different solutions for this problem. For other people's sake I'll write some of them down + what worked for me:
It seems that in some cases specifying the items' order solves the problem. Please see this SO question for full details.
If it's some default initialization you're after, you can use OnSerialized and OnDeserialized methods to call your initialization methods.
I also tried using the IsRequired attribute on my DataMembers but still didn't get my objects.
What worked for me was adding NameSpace property in the DataContract attribute. Apparently, In order to have the contracts be considered equal, you must set the Namespace property on the DataContract to the same value on both sides.

access wcf interface method from client

This is one of the classes in Interface file.
[DataContract]
public class ClassX
{
public ClassX()
{
ClassXParameters = new List<ClassXParameter>();
}
public void Add(string name, string value)
{
ClassXParameters.Add(new ClassXParameter() { Name = name, Value = value });
}
[DataMember]
public List<ClassXParameter> ClassXParameters { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class ClassXParameter
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Value { get; set; }
}
on the client I'm trying to do something like this
ClassX classx = new ClassX();
classx.Add("testname", "testvalue");
But this .Add method is not even visible.
currently I'm doing
ClassX classx = new ClassX();
List<ClassXParameter> params = new List<ClassXParameter()>;
params.add(new ClassXParameter() {Name="testname", Value="testvalue"});
classx.ClassXParameters = params;
Is there anyway I can do what I'm trying to do?
Note: I am not sure why some of the text above are in bold.
If you autogenerate the client code from scratch, it will generate a new class, which contains those members and properties that are marked with DataContract.
If you have methods that you want available on the client, you can accomplish this by putting the DataContract types in an own assembly, which you reference from both the server and the client. When you generate the service reference you have to choose the option to reuse existing classes instead of generating new ones.
Often it is suitable to put data validation rules in the data contract classes property setters. Reusing the data contract assembly in the client will cause the data validation to occur directly on the client, without the need for a roundtrip. It also causes the error in a place where it is much easier to spot than if it is reported as deserialization error.
Data Contracts are for data only. Any methods will not be visible on the client.
The bold was because of the "-----".

How can I pass a List<Interface> over WCF?

I have a WCF service where I am trying to return a List (where IWatchable is a custom interface I have built) in one of my operation contracts. When I test the service on the client the method returns an object[] instead of List<IWatchable>. Is it possible to return a List of IWatchable, since IWatchable is an interface with WCF?
Method:
public List<IWatchable> GetWorkload( Guid nodeId, int maximum )
IWatchable:
public interface IWatchable
{
string ActionName { get; set; }
Guid ActionReference { get; set; }
}
Hopefully a bit more info will be helpful...
I have a derived interface:
public interface IAMRAWatchable: IWatchable
And three concrete implementations from IAMRAWatchable:
public class InstrumentationWatch: IAMRAWatchable
public class OutputWatch: IAMRAWatchable
etc...
In my WCF method that returns List<IWatchable> I want to send an InstrumentationWatch and an OutputWatch to the client... Is this possible or am I going about this the wrong way?
Resolved
Thanks to John I found my solution. KnownType wasn't working since I was using List<IWatchable> - So I wrapped my list into a new class and added the attributes to it. I'll need to re-factor my code but for others who are interested here is the class:
[DataContract]
[KnownType( typeof( InstrumentationWatch ) )]
[KnownType( typeof( OutputWatch ) )]
public class WorkInfo
{
[DataMember]
public List<IWatchable> WorkQueue { get; set; }
}
and my WCF method:
public WorkInfo GetWorkload( Guid nodeId, int maximum )
An interface can never be serialized. It is only a description of behavior.
You can serialize objects which implement the interface, but you must tell WCF what their types are. See Data Contract Known Types.

What is the best way to return multiple values from a WCF service

What is the best way to return multiple values from a WCF service?
First of all, this must be a duplicate.
Just create a class with properties for the values. Make the class a [DataContract] and the properties [DataMember]. Return an isntance of that class. Works on all clients.
In a separate object, e.g.:
public class DTO
{
public string Data1 { get; set;}
public string Data2 { get; set;}
}
and you then return an instance of DTO from the method.
Either wrap them in a separate class that will be decorated with [DataContract] and return it from your method or use out parameters in your method call.

NHibernate add unmapped column in interceptor

I'm trying to save a mapped entity using NHibernate but my insert to the database fails because the underlying table has a column that does not allow nulls and IS NOT mapped in my domain object. The reason it isn't mapped is because the column in question supports a legacy application and has no relevance to my application - so I'd like to not pollute my entity with the legacy property.
I know I could use a private field inside my class - but this still feels nasty to me. I've read that I can use an NHibernate interceptor and override the OnSave() method to add in the new column right before my entity is saved. This is proving difficult since I can't work out how to add an instance of Nhibernate.type.IType to the types parameter of my interceptor's OnSave.
My Entity roughly looks like this:
public class Client
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual int ParentId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Phone { get; set; }
public virtual string Email { get; set; }
public virtual string Url { get; set; }
}
And my interceptor
public class ClientInterceptor : EmptyInterceptor
{
public override bool OnSave(object entity, object id, object[] state, string[] propertyNames, NHibernate.Type.IType[] types)
{
if (entity is Client)
{
/*
manually add the COM_HOLD column to the Client entity
*/
List<string> pn_list = propertyNames.ToList();
pn_list.Add("COM_HOLD");
propertyNames = pn_list.ToArray();
List<Object> _state = state.ToList();
_state.Add(false);
state = _state.ToArray();
//somehow add an IType to types param ??
}
return base.OnSave(entity, id, state, propertyNames, types);
}
}
Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this properly?
I can't say for sure since I've never actually done this (like Stefan, I also prefer to just add a private property), but can you just add a NHibernate.Type.BooleanType to the types array?
List<IType> typeList = types.ToList();
typeList.Add(new BooleanType());
types = typesList.ToArray();
EDIT
Yes, it looks like you are right; the types have an internal constructor. I did some digging and found TypeFactory:
Applications should use static
methods and constants on
NHibernate.NHibernateUtil if the
default IType is good enough. For example, the TypeFactory should only
be used when the String needs to have a length of 300 instead of 255. At this point
NHibernate.String does not get you thecorrect IType. Instead use TypeFactory.GetString(300) and keep a
local variable that holds a reference to the IType.
So it looks like what you want is NHibernateUtil:
Provides access to the full range of
NHibernate built-in types. IType
instances may be used to bind values
to query parameters. Also a factory
for new Blobs and Clobs.
typeList.Add(NHibernateUtil.Boolean);
Personally I wouldn't do it so complicated. I would add the private property and assign it a default value - finished. You could also consider a default value in the database, then you don't need to do anything else.
private virtual bool COM_HOLD
{
get { return false; }
set { /* make NH happy */ }
}
Before writing a interceptor for that I would consider to write a database trigger. Because with the Interceptor you are "polluting" your data access layer. It could make it unstable and you could have strange problems.