I have a somewhat ridiculous question regarding DDD, Repository Patterns and ORM. In this example, I have 3 classes: Address, Company and Person. A Person is a member of a Company and has an Address. A Company also has an Address.
These classes reflect a database model. I removed any dependencies of my Models, so they are not tied to a particular ORM library such as NHibernate or LinqToSql. These dependencies are dealt with inside the Repositories.
Inside one of Repositories there is a SavePerson(Person person) method which inserts/updates a Person depending on whether it already exists in the database.
Since a Person object has a Company, I currently save/update the values of the Company property too when making that SavePerson call. I insert / update all of the Company's data - Name and Address - during this procedure.
However, I really have a hard time thinking of a case where a Company's data can change while dealing with a Person - I only want to be able to assign a Company to a Person, or to move a Person to another Company. I don't think I ever want to create a new Company alongside a new Person. So the SaveCompany calls introduce unnecessary database calls. When saving a Person I should just be able to update the CompanyId column.
But since the Person class has a Company property, I'm somewhat inclined to update / insert it with it. From a strict/pure point of view, the SavePerson method should save the entire Person.
What would the preferred way be? Just inserting/updating the CompanyId of the Company property when saving a Person or saving all of its data? Or would you create two distinct methods for both scenarios (What would you name them?)
Also, another question, I currently have distinct methods for saving a Person, an Address and a Company, so when I save a Company, I also call SaveAddress. Let's assume I use LinqToSql - this means that I don't insert/update the Company and the Address in the same Linq query. I guess there are 2 Select Calls (checking whether a company exists, checking whether an address exists). And then two Insert/Update calls for both. Even more if more compound model classes are introduced. Is there a way for LinqToSql to optimize these calls?
public class Address
{
public int AddressId { get; set; }
public string AddressLine1 { get; set; }
public string AddressLine2 { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
}
public class Company
{
public int CompanyId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
public class Person
{
public int PersonId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public Company Company { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
Edit
Also see this follow up question. How are Value Objects stored in a Database?
I myself have used the IRepository approach lately that Keith suggests. But, you should not be focusing on that pattern here. Instead, there are a few more pieces in the DDD playbook that can be applied here.
Use Value Objects for your Addresses
First, there is the concept of Value Objects (VO) you can apply here. In you case, it would be the Address. The difference between a Value Object and an Entity Object is that Entities have an identity; VOs do not. The VO's identity really is the sum of it's properties, not a unique identity. In the book Domain-Drive Design Quickly (it's also a free PDF download), he explains this very well by stating that an address is really just a point on Earth and does not need a separate SocialSecurity-like identity like a person. That point on Earth is the combination of the street, number, city, zip, and country. It can have latitude and longitude values, but still those are even VOs by definition because it's a combination of two points.
Use Services for combining your entities into a single entity to act upon.
Also, do not forget about the Services concept in the DDD playbook. In your example, that service would be:
public class PersonCompanyService
{
void SavePersonCompany(IPersonCompany personCompany)
{
personRepository.SavePerson();
// do some work for a new company, etc.
companyRepository.SaveCompany();
}
}
There is a need for a service when you have two entities that need both need a similar action to coordinate a combination of other actions. In your case, saving a Person() and creating a blank Company() at the same time.
ORMs usualyl require an identity, period.
Now, how would you go about saving the Address VO in the database? You would use an IAddressRepository obviously. But since most ORMs (i.e. LingToSql) require all objects have an Identity, here's the trick: Mark the identity as internal in your model, so it is not exposed outside of your Model layer. This is Steven Sanderson's own advice.
public class Address
{
// make your identity internal
[Column(IsPrimaryKey = true
, IsDbGenerated = true
, AutoSync = AutoSync.OnInsert)]
internal int AddressID { get; set; }
// everything else public
[Column]
public string StreetNumber { get; set; }
[Column]
public string Street { get; set; }
[Column]
public string City { get; set; }
...
}
From my recent experience of using the repository pattern I think you would benefit from using a generic repository, the now common IRepository of T. That way you wouldn't have to add repository methods like SavePerson(Person person). Instead you would have something like:
IRepository<Person> personRepository = new Repository<Person>();
Person realPerson = new Person();
personRepository.SaveOrUpdate(realPerson);
This method also lends itself well to Test Driven Development and Mocking.
I feel the questions about behavior in your description would be concerns for the Domain, maybe you should have an AddCompany method in your Person class and change the Company property to
public Company Company { get; private set; }
My point is; model the domain without worrying about the how data will be persisted to the database. This is a concern for the service that will be using your domain model.
Back to the Repository, have a look at this post for good explanation of IRepository over LinqToSql. Mike's blog has many other posts on Repositories. When you do come to choose an ORM I can recommend HHibernate over LinqToSql, the latter is now defunct and NHibernate has a great support community.
Related
I have a many-to-many relationship between Assignment and User
When trying to delete an user from an assignment, I see all users are loaded in the collection.
How to I avoid that?
public class User
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual IList<Assignment> Assignments { get; set; }
}
public class Assignment
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
Mappings:
HasManyToMany(user => user.Assignments).Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("UserId").ChildKeyColumn("AssignmentId").Inverse().ExtraLazyLoad();
HasManyToMany(productAssignment => productAssignment.Users).AsSet().Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("AssignmentId").ChildKeyColumn("UserId").LazyLoad();
Calling code:
assignment.Users.Remove(user)
Initially I used Bag instead of Set for Assignment mapping, but when updating it, it was deleting and then reinserting alot of rows in the AssignmentsToUsers table. So I changed to using Set.
But now I see a problem with using Set: it brings all data in memory.
What is the recommended way of doing this?
You can't avoid this and I would ignore it if performance is acceptable. If performance is a problem, there are three ways I can think of to tackle it:
If the other side of the collection (User.Assignments) is lighter weight then remove the assignment from the user instead.
Model the many-to-many table and delete the object directly. You would have to be certain that the Users collection is not going to be loaded prior to this because the in-memory representation will still contain the deleted record.
Direct delete using SQL -- this has the same caveat as #2.
You should use extra lazy mode also for Assignment.Users.
Is there something analogous on NHibernate regarding Entity Framework's navigation property? For example, instead of:
s.Save(new Product { Category = s.Get<Category>("FD"), Name = "Pizza" });
I wish I could write:
s.Save(new Product { CategoryId = "FD", Name = "Pizza" });
Can I inform NHibernate not to use the Product's Category property as a mechanism to save the Product's category? I want to use CategoryId instead(Read: I don't want to use DTO). Entity Framework seems able to facilitate avoiding DTO patterns altogether, while at the same time offering the full benefit of ORM(can avoid joins using navigation properties). I want the EF's offering the best of both worlds(lean mechanism for saving objects, i.e. no need to retrieve the property's object) and navigation mechanism for querying stuff
Sample from EF: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/03/15/ef-4-1-code-first-walkthrough.aspx
public class Category
{
public virtual string CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public class Product
{
public virtual int ProductId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
}
[UPDATE]
Regarding James answer, I tried seeing the NHibernate's actions in SQL Server Profiler.
// this act didn't hit the Category table from the database
var c = s.Load<Category>("FD");
// neither this hit the Category table from the database
var px = new Product { Category = c, Name = "Pizza" };
// this too, neither hit the Category table from the database
s.Save(px);
Only when you actually access the Category object that NHibernate will hit the database
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", c.CategoryId, c.Name);
If I understand your question, you want to save a Product with a Category without hitting the database to load the Category object. NHibernate absolutely supports this and you almost have the right code. Here is how you do it in NHibernate:
s.Save(new Product { Category = s.Load<Category>("FD"), Name = "Pizza" });
This will not hit the database to fetch the actual Category, but it will simply save a Product with the correct Category.Id. Note that you don't need (and I would recommend getting rid of Product.CategoryId).
Now why does this work with session.Load(), but not session.Get()... With session.Get(), NHibernate has to return the object or null. In .NET, there is no way for an object to replace itself with null after the fact. So NHibernate is forced to go to the database (or L1 cache) to verify that the "FD" Category actually exists. If it exists, it returns an object. If not, it must return null.
Let's look at session.Load(). If the object is not present in the database, it throws an exception. So NHibernate can return a proxy object from session.Load() and delay actually hitting the database. When you actually access the object, NHibernate will check the database and can throw an exception at that point if the object doesn't exist. In this case, we're saving a Product to the database. All NHibernate needs is the Category's PK, which it has in the proxy. So it doesn't have to query the database for the Category object. NHibernate never actually needs to hydrate an actual Category object to satisfy the save request.
This is a sample from the Fluent NHibernate website:
Compared to the Entitiy Framework I have ADD methods in my POCO in this code sample using NHibernate. With the EF I did context.Add or context.AddObject etc... the context had the methods to put one entity into the others entity collection!
Do I really have to implement Add/Delete/Update methods (I do not mean the real database CRUD operations!) in a NHibernate entity ?
public class Store
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Product> Products { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Employee> Staff { get; set; }
public Store()
{
Products = new List<Product>();
Staff = new List<Employee>();
}
public virtual void AddProduct(Product product)
{
product.StoresStockedIn.Add(this);
Products.Add(product);
}
public virtual void AddEmployee(Employee employee)
{
employee.Store = this;
Staff.Add(employee);
}
}
You don't have to do this for nhibernate, you have to do this for keep in-memory consistence and not repeat yourself.
Consistence in memory
If you have a two way relationship, lets say Order has Lines, and Line as a relationship to order. You don't want to have a reference from one side and not from the other.
If you just do:
order.Lines.Add(line);
You have made a reference from Order to Line, but Line.Order property remains null. So your in-memory instances are not consistent.
Don't Repeat Yourself
You can use the following code :
order.Lines.Add(line);
line.Order = order;
but you will be repeating yourself, so it is better to put this code in only one place, and the best place is as order.AddLine(..).
You don't have to. You could just call SomeStore.Products.Add(someProduct) directly from outside of your entity. But it's often good practice to make the collections 'read-only' from a public perspective, and using an add method in the entity for adding items.
One benefit of this is that you can put additional logic in there. For instance in your store example, you could set a 'storesStockedIn' collection (if there was such a thing) in the same method, and so keep all the logic about to creating that relationship in one place.
This isn't really a NHibernate thing, but rather an OOP thing. (Although I'm not familiar with EF - maybe it automates some of this for you). The design decisions are exactly the same as if it was just an unpersisted poco (without NHibernate).
I am trying to build a domain model that will allow me to manage Contracts.
The Contract class is my aggregate root, and it has a single property right now, which is Reviewers.
Reviewers, in the context of the Contract, each have a property to it's parent Contract, and a First Name, Last Name, and Login. The reason they have these properties is so I can have the user select which Reviewers they want on a Contract.
The database that I'm tying my domain model to already exists, and it's a legacy system that I'm trying to extend.
It has a Contract Table, and a Reviewer Table.
The thing I haven't mentioned up until this point, is that Reviewers are actually Users in the system. So there's actually a third table involved, which is Users.
I have been able to map my Contract Table easily with FNH.
It looks something like this:
public class ContractMapping: ClassMap<Contract>
{
public ContractMapping()
{
Id(c => c.Id);
HasMany(c => c.AdditionalReviewers);
}
}
But I'm not sure how to model my Reviewers, because they are in fact Users as well. So my object model looks like this:
public class Reviewer: User
{
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual Contract Contract { get; set; }
}
public class User
{
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Login { get; set; }
public virtual string FirstName { get; set; }
public virtual string LastName { get; set; }
}
I've been able to map my User class properly, and it looks something like this:
public class UserMapping: ClassMap<User>
{
public UserMapping()
{
Id(u => u.Id);
Map(u => u.Login);
Map(u => u.FirstName);
Map(u => u.LastName);
}
}
and I believe I want to map my Reviewer class like this:
public class ReviewerMapping: SubclassMap<Reviewer>
{
public ReviewerMapping()
{
Table("Reviewer");
//Id(r => r.Id).Column("ReviewerId"); <- won't compile
References(r => r.Contract).Column("ContractId");
}
}
So the problem I'm having is this:
The relationship between the User table and the Reviewer table is one to many. Meaning, for a given User there may be many Reviewer records. Why? Because a User has to be a Reviewer for a specific Contract. This causes an issue with the mapping, though, because the primary key for my Reviewer and the primary key for my User are completely different values, by necessity.
Also, because of the way I'm using Reviewer, when I create a new Reviewer, what I'm really trying to do is to associate a User with a Contract. I am not trying to create an entirely new User in the database.
What is the correct way for me to map Reviewer, knowing that in my domain model it is a subclass of User?
Sounds like a the Reviewer is not really modelling a person, but modelling a role or assignment the User takes on. I'd say your domain model is flawed in this aspect. Tweak Reviewer to be an association class between a User and a Contract.
I don't think Reviewer should inherit from User in the scenario you've described. I would have the Reviewer class hold a User object instead (composition over inheritance).
If it helps you conceptualize it better, rename Reviewer to Review. That way you can stop thinking about it as a User since it really isn't (multiple Reviewers in your current domain can be the same User, which doesn't make much sense).
Can someone help me with the best way to map the following situation in fluent nHibernate? The Address class is used in both Client and Company. How can I store it most efficient in SQL? And what should the mapping look like? I've thought about multiple options, but I'm not experienced enough with nHibernate for these situations:
use 1 address entity and 1 table and use a denominator column to distinguish between address for client and address for company -> how to implement this in nHibernate?
use 1 address entity and 2 tables (ClientAddresses and CompanyAddresses) --> but I can only define 1 table in the mapping of the class Address
use 2 address entities and 2 tables --> not so elegant
I've just stumbled upon this problem when I started implementing the company class and realized it also needed multiple addresses. Up till now I had a Address and Client class and had a one-to-many mapping between them. In the database the Address had an extra column called ClientId. But with introducing the Company class I'm stuck...
Any help would greatly be appreciated.
I'm currently working in the sharparch 1.5 framework, which uses automapping and my mapping files are like this:
public class AddressMap : IAutoMappingOverride<Address>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<Address> mapping)
{
mapping.Table("addresses");
mapping.Id(x => x.Id, "AddressGuid")
.UnsavedValue(Guid.Empty)
.GeneratedBy.GuidComb();
mapping.References(x => x.Client, "ClientGuid");
}
}
Below some more code the illustrate the problem:
Address
public class Address
{
public virtual string StreetLine1 { get; set; }
public virtual string StreetLine2 { get; set; }
public virtual string PostalCode { get; set; }
public virtual string City { get; set; }
public virtual string Country { get; set; }
}
which has the following table:
tablename = addresses
fields= AddressGuid, StreetLine1, StreetLine2, PostalCode, City, Country
Client
public class Client
{
public IList<Address> Addresses {get;set;}
}
Company
public class Company
{
public IList<Address> Addresses {get;set;}
}
It looks like you can implement #1 with nHibernate's <any> mapping. Note that in this case you cannot specify foreign-key constraints.
an example of <any>
Fluent nHibernate syntax
You could model the relationships as a many-to-many: many companies to many addresses, and many clients to many addresses.
In both your Company and Client mappings:
mapping.HasManyToMany(x => x.Addresses);
This will create two additional tables: one mapping between companies and addresses, another mapping between clients and addresses.
In theory this could allow sharing situations (some companies and clients all sharing have the same address row) which you probably don't want, but as long as your application logic doesn't allow that to happen, you'll be fine and you won't have to do anything tricky with nhibernate.