I am retrofitting a very large application to use NHibernate as it's data access strategy. Everything is going well with AutoMapping. Luckily when the domain layer was built, we used a code generator. The main issue that I am running into now is that every collection is hidden behind a custom class that derives from List<>. For example
public class League
{
public OwnerList owners {get;set;}
}
public class OwnerList : AppList<Owner> { }
public class AppList<T> : List<T> { }
What kind of Convention do I have to write to get this done?
I don't think you're going to be able to achieve this with a convention. You will have to create an auto mapping override and then do the following:
mapping.HasMany(l => a.owners).CollectionType<OwnerList>();
Related
In DDD, Value Object and Enumeration are quite beautiful so that I want use both two in the daily program logic, not only domain logic. When use customized value objects and enumerations, serialization problem is coming : should I implemented all the value objects and enumeration with System.Text.Json.JsonConverter<T> , or is there any good way to handle serialization and deserialization ?
Update:
to make it clear, Eumeration demo as below(ValueObject derived classes are same.):
[JsonConverter(typeof(CustomizedConverter))]
public class CustomizedEnumeration1 : Enumeration
{
public string Customized { get; protected set; }
public ... // some other customized property or class
public CustomizedEnumeration(int id, string name, string customized) : base(id, string) {
Customized = customized;
}
}
public class Customized2 : Enumeration
{ ... }
public class OtherCustomized: Enumeration
{ ... }
In DDD, properties sometimes are sealed by protected/private setter, deserialization has no right to set the value. Many derived classes can't deserialize as expected, so we have to rewrite serialization with System.Text.Json.JsonConverter<T> one by one. rewrite every derived Enumeration / Valueobject converter is not good, can any one point out any easy abstraction for that ?
You can achieve your desired result. You need to switch to NewtonsoftJson serialization.
Call this in Startup.cs in the ConfigureServices method:
services.AddControllers().AddNewtonsoftJson();
After this, your constructor will be called by deserialization for classes with private setter.
There is no need for custom converters.
For reference, I am using ASP Net Core 3.1
According COMPOSITION ROOT pattern, I must to construct all dependencies graph as close as possible to the application's entry point.
My architecture is plugin oriented. So, if someone wants to extend my base system he can.
For example, in my base system I have this structure:
View Layer
Services Layer
Data Access Layer
Model Layer
In DAL, I expose some classes like:
IRepository
NHibernateRepository
ProductRepository
So, I'd like if a plugin wants to extend my base Product class to ExtendedProduct, and then create ExtendedProductRepository that inherits from NHibernateRepository.
The question is:
How can instantiate from my base system an instance of NHibernateRepository using NInject?
So, I know the first thing to do is to construct the graph dependencies:
using (var kernel = new StandardKernel())
{
kernel.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom<IRepository>()
.BindAllInterfaces());
}
However, I'm figuring out that when I execute something like:
kernel.GetAll<IRepository>()
It's going to return me a ProductRepository instance, and another ProductExtendedRepository under two IRepository objects.
So, how I can save a ProductExtended object from my base system...?
Another question, would be, how could I inject a object instance in my plugins, or, how can plugins autoinject some instance of base system assembly?
Thanks for all.
I'll appreciate a lot some help.
I use this pattern for my NHibernate based projects:
public interface IRepository<T> : IQueryable<T>
{
T Get(int id);
void Save(T item);
void Delete(T item);
}
public class NHibernateRepository<ModelType> : IRepository<ModelType>
where ModelType : class
{
// implementation
}
then...
public interface IProductRepository : IRepository<Product>
{
// product specific data access methods
}
public class ProductRepository : NHibernateRepository<Product>, IProductRepository
{
// implementation
}
... and in Ninject Module:
Bind(typeof(IRepository<>)).To(typeof(NHibernateRepository<>));
Bind<IProductRepository>().To<ProductRepository>();
then you can either request the base functionality like:
public Constructor(IRepository<Product> repo) { ... }
or specific product repository functionality:
public Constructor(IProductRepository repo) { ... }
your plugins can either get the base functionality and won't have to register anything:
public PluginConstructor(IRepository<ProductExtended> repo { ... }
or create their own repositories and register them in a Ninject module.
Thanks dave.
It's perfect. I'll try it.
However, how could I save or get or update (whichever IRepository methods)... an ExtendedProduct instance from my base system?
Think the follow out:
public interface BasePlugin<T> {...}
In another assembly:
public class PluginExtendedProduct : BasePlugin<ExtendedProduct>
{
public PluginExtendedProduct (IRepository<ExtendedProduct> repo { ... }
}
My headache is how to create an instance of (so, ExtendedProduct) in my base system in order to call methods PluginExtendedProduct that uses an IRepository.
I don't know if I'm explaining myself well...
Thanks for all.
I have a pretty standard repository interface:
public interface IRepository<TDomainEntity>
where TDomainEntity : DomainEntity, IAggregateRoot
{
TDomainEntity Find(Guid id);
void Add(TDomainEntity entity);
void Update(TDomainEntity entity);
}
We can use various infrastructure implementations in order to provide default functionality (e.g. Entity Framework, DocumentDb, Table Storage, etc). This is what the Entity Framework implementation looks like (without any actual EF code, for simplicity sake):
public abstract class EntityFrameworkRepository<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> : IRepository<TDomainEntity>
where TDomainEntity : DomainEntity, IAggregateRoot
where TDataEntity : class, IDataEntity
{
protected IEntityMapper<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> EntityMapper { get; private set; }
public TDomainEntity Find(Guid id)
{
// Find, map and return entity using Entity Framework
}
public void Add(TDomainEntity item)
{
var entity = EntityMapper.CreateFrom(item);
// Insert entity using Entity Framework
}
public void Update(TDomainEntity item)
{
var entity = EntityMapper.CreateFrom(item);
// Update entity using Entity Framework
}
}
There is a mapping between the TDomainEntity domain entity (aggregate) and the TDataEntity Entity Framework data entity (database table). I will not go into detail as to why there are separate domain and data entities. This is a philosophy of Domain Driven Design (read about aggregates). What's important to understand here is that the repository will only ever expose the domain entity.
To make a new repository for, let's say, "users", I could define the interface like this:
public interface IUserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
// I can add more methods over and above those in IRepository
}
And then use the Entity Framework implementation to provide the basic Find, Add and Update functionality for the aggregate:
public class UserRepository : EntityFrameworkRepository<Stop, StopEntity>, IUserRepository
{
// I can implement more methods over and above those in IUserRepository
}
The above solution has worked great. But now we want to implement deletion functionality. I have proposed the following interface (which is an IRepository):
public interface IDeleteableRepository<TDomainEntity>
: IRepository<TDomainEntity>
{
void Delete(TDomainEntity item);
}
The Entity Framework implementation class would now look something like this:
public abstract class EntityFrameworkRepository<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> : IDeleteableRepository<TDomainEntity>
where TDomainEntity : DomainEntity, IAggregateRoot
where TDataEntity : class, IDataEntity, IDeleteableDataEntity
{
protected IEntityMapper<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> EntityMapper { get; private set; }
// Find(), Add() and Update() ...
public void Delete(TDomainEntity item)
{
var entity = EntityMapper.CreateFrom(item);
entity.IsDeleted = true;
entity.DeletedDate = DateTime.UtcNow;
// Update entity using Entity Framework
// ...
}
}
As defined in the class above, the TDataEntity generic now also needs to be of type IDeleteableDataEntity, which requires the following properties:
public interface IDeleteableDataEntity
{
bool IsDeleted { get; set; }
DateTime DeletedDate { get; set; }
}
These properties are set accordingly in the Delete() implementation.
This means that, IF required, I can define IUserRepository with "deletion" capabilities which would inherently be taken care of by the relevant implementation:
public interface IUserRepository : IDeleteableRepository<User>
{
}
Provided that the relevant Entity Framework data entity is an IDeleteableDataEntity, this would not be an issue.
The great thing about this design is that I can start granualising the repository model even further (IUpdateableRepository, IFindableRepository, IDeleteableRepository, IInsertableRepository) and aggregate repositories can now expose only the relevant functionality as per our specification (perhaps you should be allowed to insert into a UserRepository but NOT into a ClientRepository). Further to this, it specifies a standarised way in which certain repository actions are done (i.e. the updating of IsDeleted and DeletedDate columns will be universal and are not at the hand of the developer).
PROBLEM
A problem with the above design arises when I want to create a repository for some aggregate WITHOUT deletion capabilities, e.g:
public interface IClientRepository : IRepository<Client>
{
}
The EntityFrameworkRepository implementation still requires TDataEntity to be of type IDeleteableDataEntity.
I can ensure that the client data entity model does implement IDeleteableDataEntity, but this is misleading and incorrect. There will be additional fields that are never updated.
The only solution I can think of is to remove the IDeleteableDataEntity generic condition from TDataEntity and then cast to the relevant type in the Delete() method:
public abstract class EntityFrameworkRepository<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> : IDeleteableRepository<TDomainEntity>
where TDomainEntity : DomainEntity, IAggregateRoot
where TDataEntity : class, IDataEntity
{
protected IEntityMapper<TDomainEntity, TDataEntity> EntityMapper { get; private set; }
// Find() and Update() ...
public void Delete(TDomainEntity item)
{
var entity = EntityMapper.CreateFrom(item);
var deleteableEntity = entity as IDeleteableEntity;
if(deleteableEntity != null)
{
deleteableEntity.IsDeleted = true;
deleteableEntity.DeletedDate = DateTime.UtcNow;
entity = deleteableEntity;
}
// Update entity using Entity Framework
// ...
}
}
Because ClientRepository does not implement IDeleteableRepository, there will be no Delete() method exposed, which is good.
QUESTION
Can anyone advise of a better architecture which leverages the C# typing system and does not involve the hacky cast?
Interestly enough, I could do this if C# supported multiple inheritance (with separate concrete implementation for finding, adding, deleting, updating).
I do think that you're complicating things a bit too much trying to get the most generic solution of them all, however I think there's a pretty easy solution to your current problem.
TDataEntity is a persistence data structure, it has no Domain value and it's not known outside the persistence layer. So it can have fields it won't ever use, the repository is the only one knowing that, it'a persistence detail . You can afford to be 'sloppy' here, things aren't that important at this level.
Even the 'hacky' cast is a good solution because it's in one place and a private detail.
It's good to have clean and maintainable code everywhere, however we can't afford to waste time coming up with 'perfect' solutions at every layer. Personally, for view and persistence models I prefer the quickest and simplest solutions even if they're a bit smelly.
P.S: As a thumb rule, generic repository interfaces are good, generic abstract repositories not so much (you need to be careful) unless you're serializing things or using a doc db.
This question might seems a bit strange at first but there's a legacy project that is working this way and I want to know if there's a way to generate its hbm documents using Fluent Nhibernate.
We have a parent class which is not an abstract class .Something like this:
[Entity("EmployeeTable")]
public class Employee
{
//Memebers of Employee
}
and it has some subclasses.The purpose of these subclasses is merely for code re-usability and as you can see these are some views (Summaries) to represent some information.
[Entity("EmployeeType1View")]
public class EmployeeType1:Employee
{
//Memebers of EmployeeType1
}
[Entity("EmployeeType2View")]
public class EmployeeType2:Employee
{
//Memebers of EmployeeType2
}
So here is the question : is there a way that we can tell fluent nhibernate not to take this inheritance hierarchy into account or in another word to tell it to generate separate hbm file for each of these classes?
unfortunatly FNH can not write subclass maps individually. You could however alter the mapping after writing it to disc.
var model = new FluentNHibernate.Automapping.AutoPersistenceModel();
// add assembly and the like to model
model.WriteMappingsTo(path);
forech(var baseclass in classesWithSubclasses)
{
var doc = new XmlDocument();
doc.Load(baseclass.getType().FullName + ".hbm.xml");
// use xpath to separate the subclassmapping in its own file
}
I have the inheritance described below :
public abstract class BaseEntity<TId> {....}
public abstract class ModelEntity : BaseEntity<Int32>{....}
public abstract class AuditableEntity : ModelEntity,IAuditable{....}
public class ApplicationUser : AuditableEntity{....}
public class SuperUser : ApplicationUser
I am using NHibernate 3.3 and I want to Create the mappings for that inheritance
public abstract class ModelEntityMap<TEntity> : ClassMapping<TEntity>
where TEntity : ModelEntity
{...}
public class AuditableEntityMap<TEntity> : ModelEntityMap<TEntity> where TEntity : AuditableEntity
{ ...}
public class ApplicationUserMap : AuditableEntityMap<ApplicationUser>
{...}
public class SuperUserMap : JoinedSubclassMapping<SuperUser>{...}
When the application starts and trys to set up the database it raises the following Exception :
Ambiguous mapping for SuperUser More than one root entities was found BaseEntity / ApplicationUser
Possible solutions
-Merge the mapping of root Entity in the one is representing the real root in the hierarchy
-Inject a IModelInspector with a logic to discover the real root-entity.
I was using Fluent nhibernate with the same inheritance and worked fine with SuperUserMap defined as
public class SuperUserMap : SubClassMap {...}
I am new to Nhibernate mapping by code and quite confused !!!
I believe there are two ways to solve this problem:
a) Using the concept of discriminator that identifies the type of the class stored and thereby the right object is retrieved from the database, in this case your class is mapped to a table that has all the columns plus the discriminator columns. Not sure how this works with multi-level inheritance but this is something that you can google.
b) take a look at this post on how he deals with inheritance: http://fabiomaulo.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/nhibernate-32-mapping-by-code_13.html you might get some idea to solve your issue.
You can influence the decision whether an entity is a root entity by overriding the IsRootEntity logic of the model mapper that you use to create mappings.
Here's an example that defines the default NHibernate mapping-by-code behaviour:
var modelMapper = new ConventionModelMapper();
modelMapper.IsRootEntity((type, declared) =>
{
if (declared) return true; // Type has already been declared as root entity
return type.IsClass
&& typeof(object) == type.BaseType
&& modelMapper.ModelInspector.IsEntity(type);
});
You will have to tweak this decision logic to exclude the BaseEntity class as possible root entity.
I had this error with NHibernate 4.1.1 (May 2017), so I'm answering with how I solved it for future reference
In my case, I copied an existing mapping of an inheriting class, and forgot to change the parent mapping class to ClassMapping and encountered the same error
In other words, in your mapping class, check the parent class, make sure it is ClassMapping or JoinedSubclassMapping if it's a child class