I want to start a project in JEE and I need to confirm about my class diagram. I need to know if the methods used are correct and if the composition I used is correct or not.
This is my class diagram:
The project is about an online sales store, that wants to set up a management tool to sell products, and to manage its products. This tool must include the following features:
Identification module: identification of clients, managers, supervisors
Sales module: make purchases for users
Product Management Module: Adding / Deleting Products
Statistical module: visualization of sales statistics
Functional Specifications
It is necessary to act on the application, to connect to the application with a user ID and password. To facilitate its use and in order to avoid any mishandling thereafter, here is the solution:
User Profile:
The user will be able to visualize the products sold by My Online Races. The user can place an order, provided that he has registered with the site My Online Races.
Manager profile:
The manager will be able to manage the products:
Add / Edit / Delete Products
Add / Edit / Delete category
These data insertions can be made using CSV or XML files, but also through various forms on the website.
The manager will be able to view the sales statistics.
Supervisor Profile:
The supervisor can add managers whose roles are specified above.
The supervisor will be able to view the sales statistics.
The supervisor will be able to view all the actions performed by the managers, a sort of audit trail.
Well I wish to know already if you have remarks about my design. As well as I have a confusion for several methods, for example adding, modifying and deleting a product. Should I put them in the manager or product class? Is the composition I put correct or should I remove it?
Quick review of the diagram and advices
First some minor remarks about class naming: Ordered should be called Order.
The composition between Article and Order is just wrong (not from a formal view, but from the meaning it conveys). Use a normal one-to-many association: it would reflect much better the real nature of the relation between the two classes. Please take into account that a new article may exist without having been ordered, so it shoud be 0..* instead of 1..*
+belongs and +do in the middle of an association are syntactically incorect. You should use a plain triangle instead (or nothing at all). The triangle should be oriented in the reading direction Person do |> Order and Article belongs to |> Category
The methods seem ok. You do not need to add a suffix.
How shall objects be managed (created/updated/deleted) ?
A more advanced concern is not about the diagram but about how you want to organise persistence (i.e. database storage):
do you really want the object to be an active record, that is an object that adds, updates and deletes itself (to the database) ? It's simple to set up, works well, but makes the class dependent on the underlying database implementation and thus makes maintenance more difficult;
or wouldn't it be better to use a repository for each object ? In this case the repository acts as a collection that manages all the database operations. The domain object (Article, order, User, ...) then have nothing to know about the database, wich leads to more maintainable code.
But this is a broader architectural question. If it's just for a first experimental project with JEE, you can very well use the active records. It's simpler to set up. Be sure however in this case to disambiguate the Add/Update/Delete on Person, since it currently may give the impression that any person can add anyone.
Improvement of the model
A final remark, again not about the diagram itself, is about the domain. Your model considers that an Order is about a single Article.
In reality however, orders are in general about one or several articles: if this would also be the case here, your Order would become an OrderItem and the real Order would be inserted between Person and OrderItem. You could then make the relation between Order and OrderItem a composition (i.e: OrderItem is owned by Order, which has responsibility for creating its items, and the items have no sense without the related order).
Related
I'm currently designing a backend for a social networking-related application in REST. I'm very intrigued by the DDD principle. Now let's assume I have a User object who has a Collection of Friends. These can be thousands if the app and the user would become very successful. Every Friend would have some properties as well, it is basically a User.
Looking at the DDD Cargo application example, the fully expanded Cargo-object is stored and retrieved from the CargoRepository from time to time. WOW, if there is a list in the aggregate-root, over time this would trigger a OOM eventually. This is why there is pagination, and lazy-loading if you approach the problem from a data-centric point of view. But how could you cope with these large collections in a persistence-unaware DDD?
As #JefClaes mentioned in the comments: You need to determine whether your User AR indeed requires a collection of Friends.
Ownership does not necessarily imply that a collection is necessary.
Take an Order / OrderLine example. An OrderLine has no meaning without being part of an Order. However, the Customer that an Order belongs to does not have a collection of Orders. It may, possibly, have a collection of ActiveOrders if a customer is limited to a maximum number (or amount) iro active orders. Keeping a collection of historical orders would be unnecessary.
I suspect the large collection problem is not limited to DDD. If one were to receive an Order with many thousands of lines there may be design trade-offs but the order may much more likely be simply split into smaller orders.
In your case I would assert that the inclusion / exclusion of a Friend has very little to do with the consistency of the User AR.
Something to keep in mind is that as soon as you start using you domain model for querying your start running into weird sorts of problems. So always try to think in terms of some read/query model with a simple query interface that can access your data directly without using your domain model. This may simplify things.
So perhaps a Relationship AR may assist in this regard.
If some paging or optimization techniques are the part of your domain, it's nothing wrong to design domain classes with this ability.
Some solutions I've thought about
If User is aggregate root, you can populate your UserRepository with method GetUserWithFriends(int userId, int firstFriendNo, int lastFriendNo) encapsulating specific user object construction. In same way you can also populate user model with some counters and etc.
On the other side, it is possible to implement lazy loading for User instance's _friends field. Thus, User instance can itself decide which "part" of friends list to load.
Finally, you can use UserRepository to get all friends of certain user with respect to paging or other filtering conditions. It doesn't violate any DDD principles.
DDD is too big to talk that it's not for CRUD. Programming in a DDD way you should always take into account some technical limitations and adapt your domain to satisfy them.
Do not prematurely optimize. If you are afraid of large stress, then you have to benchmark your application and perform stress tests.
You need to have a table like so:
friends
id, user_id1, user_id2
to handle the n-m relation. Index your fields there.
Also, you need to be aware whether friends if symmetrical. If so, then you need a single row for two people if they are friends. If not, then you might have one row, showing that a user is friends with the other user. If the other person considers the first a friend as well, you need another row.
Lazy-loading can be achieved by hidden (AJAX) requests so users will have the impression that it is faster than it really is. However, I would not worry about such problems for now, as later you can migrate the content of the tables to a new structure which is unkown now due to the infinite possible evolutions of your project.
Your aggregate root can have a collection of different objects that will only contain a small subset of the information, as reference to the actual business objects. Then when needed, items can be used to fetch the entire information from the underlying repository.
I´m a little confused about inheritance and relationships in core data, and I was hopping someone could drive to the right path. In my app i have created 3 entities, and none of them have (and are not suppose to have) common properties, but there´s gonna be a save and a load button for all the work that the user does. From my understanding I need to "wrap" all the entities "work" into an object which will be used to save and load, and my question is, do I need to create relationships between the entities? Because I have to relate them somehow and this is what make sense to me. Is my logic correct?
I'm implementing a budget calculator, and for the purpose of everyone understand what my issue is, I´m going to give an practical example and please correct me if my logic is incorrect:
Let´s just say you are a fruit seller, and because of that it´s normal to have a database of clients and also a fruit database with the kinds of fruit you sell. From my understanding I find two entities here:
Client with properties named: name, address, phone, email, etc.
Stock with properties named: name, weight, stock, cost, supplier, etc.
TheBudget with properties named: name, amount, type, cost, delivery, etc.
I didn´t put all the properties because I think you get the point. I mean as you can see, there´s only two properties I could inherit; the rest is different. So, if I was doing a budget for a client, I can have as many clients I want and also the amount of stock, but what about the actual budget?
I´m sorry if my explanation was not very clear, but if it was..what kind of relationships should I be creating? I think Client and TheBudget have a connection. What do you advise me?
That's not entirely correct, but some parts are on the right track. I've broken your question down into three parts: relationships, inheritance and the Managed Object Context to hopefully help you understand each part separately:
Relationships
Relationships are usually used to indicate that one entity can 'belong' to another (i.e. an employee can belong to a company). You can setup multiple one-to-many relationships (i.e. an employee belongs to a company and a boss) and you can setup the inverse relationships (which is better described with the word 'owns' or 'has', such as 'one company has many employees).
There are many even more complicated relationships depending on your needs and a whole set of delete rules that you can tell the system to follow when an entity in a relationship is deleted. When first starting out I found it easiest to stick with one-to-one and one-to-many relationships like I've described above.
Inheritance
Inheritance is best described as a sort of base template that is used for other, more specific entities. You are correct in stating that you could use inheritance as a sort of protocol to define some basic attributes that are common across a number of entities. A good example of this would be having a base class 'Employee' with attributes 'name', 'address' and 'start date'. You could then create other entities that inherit from this Employee entity, such as 'Marketing Rep', 'HR', 'Sales Rep', etc. which all have the common attributes 'name', 'address' and 'start date' without creating those attributes on each individual entity. Then, if you wanted to update your model and add, delete or modify a common attribute, you could do so on the parent entity and all of its children will inherit those changes automatically.
Managed Object Context (i.e. saving)
Now, onto the other part of your question/statement: wrapping all of your entities into an object which will be used to save and load. You do not need to create this object, core data uses the NSManagedObjectContext (MOC for short) specifically for this purpose. The MOC is tasked with keeping track of objects you create, delete and modify. In order to save your changes, you simply call the save: method on your MOC.
If you post your entities and what they do, I might be able to help make suggestions on ways to set it up in core data. You want to do your best to setup as robust a core data model as you can during the initial development process. The OS needs to be able to 'upgrade' the backing store to incorporate any changes you've made between your core data model revisions. If you do a poor job of setting up your core data model initially and release your code that way, it can be very difficult to try and make a complicated model update when the app is in the wild (as you've probably guessed, this is advice born out of painful experience :)
The central tenet to the software I am building is the "workorder"
WorkOrder as I see it would be an "aggregate root" that contains basic information about the work order such as creation date, model/manufacturer, serial number, purchase order.
In addition to these "value" objects, there are also sub "entities" or "aggregates" such as:
Sequences
Reworks
Dimensions
QuoteItems
Consumables
None of the above can/should exist without an associated work order. In the existing system they actually occasionally do but that is because of lack of transactions or checks in code to ensure integrity. They are orphaned records and deleted via scheduled clean up - one of the many reasons I am learning more about DDD and ORM to bring our development practices up to speed.
NOTE: This is probably off topic and can likely be skipped in your
reply
because we are primarily a web-based interface using extJS, each of
the list controls that display each of the above, I have been
reluctant to switch to ORM and DDD. Each list is populated via a
controller:action that queries the DB (ie: sequences list is populated
when the JS control calls a sequence REST URI with GET command). This
GET command invokes a controller that instantiates a sequence object
and calls the selectAllForWorkorderID method
My understanding of ORM is that I would use a repository to query
these items. Fine, however if this sequence object (in DDD parlance)
is considered an aggregate of WorkOrder root - then I must find the
workorder first and traverse the sequences through the WorkOrder.
In a AJAX web-based context this feels funny to me - but in a desktop
environment or even standard web-based context this is acceptable as I
would only query the WorkOrder object once each time a WorkOrder item
is selected in the master list. Not 6 or 8 times for each individual
list to be populated.
I can see now that our system actually has several aggregate root objects, work order is just the more complicated of the few:
WorkOrder
Warranties
Repair Orders
Are the primary roots. Warranties are dependent on work order ID's and Repair Orders can be but not always.
Ignoring the latter roots - allow me to focus solely on WorkOrder.
When I begin examine the existing models and try to determine what is business logic and/or application logic I am slightly confused. What goes into a "service" versus "aggregate root".
Consider one such method in the current model:
createWorkOrderFromRpi.
RPI's are approved documents that act as templates for WorkOrders - they dictate what sequences and the order of execution "can" be performed, dimensions, list of consumables etc. This is a separate system altogether and I believe would best be described as a "module" in DDD nomenclature.
This method has to query the RPI system and obtain the work order header details, sequence list, consumables, etc.
Once it has this data it calls the associated objects and methods:
WorkOrder.Create(Header Details)
Sequence.Create(Sequence Details) - Done in loop (1:m)
Consumable.Create(Consumable Details) - Done in loop (1:m)
In following DDD I am tempted to have the WorkOrder "aggregate root" provide a method with an identical signature however I am reluctant to do so.
I believe each of the "entities" that are aggregates of WorkOrder fit the description and should not ever be exposed to anything outside of the "root" unless traversed through the root itself. There may be cases where this is not the case. On second thought, the interface only ever exposes consumables and sequences and such when a work order is selected which would imply a work order must be loaded anyway?!?
There are some essential business rules which this method must perform:
A Work order with identical serial number is not actively already in the system (unless archived) unless it's on sub-contract in which case do not create a new work but receive a repair order for this work order instead.
There are a few more "rules" but I will exclude them for the sake of brevity.
The individual entities perform micro business validations, for example some fields, such as serial number, have a specific format, as do part numbers and purchase order numbers.
My primary question or concern, is given the above description, would this method best be implemented in an "aggregate root" or "service"?
UPDATE | One final question...if aggregate root is the proper concept...and I need access to the sequences so that I may update a field I would access conceptually (ignore syntax) like:
WorkOrder.Sequences(0).moveToNext()
If this method was implemented in the sequences "entity" which makes sense. Where does the division between technical details and business logic exist? For example, to move a work order from one sequence to the next, we update three timestamps per sequence:
date_entered
date_started
date_finished
When the last timestamp is set, the next sequence date_entered is set to the same time as previous sequence date_finished and the system knows this is the active sequence now. Thats a technical matter.
But a business rule or constraint would be:
Don't move work order if moved into history
Don't move work order if in rework
Don't move work order if in subcon
These are rules, which I would love to keep separated and distinct so as to make it easy for me to translate into English in the form of a specs document which I could present management as a living document and proof of functionality. I was kind of hoping that is what DDD would enforce/promote in a clean manner. Is this a requirement handled independently of DDD? Is this where CQS comes in? Separating business rules from technical matters which are of zero relevance to stake holders?
Alex
I think your createWorkOrderFromRpi() method should be on a "Service" rather than the WorkOrder aggregate root. This service method would then call methods on your Repositories or DAOs to create the workorder. An Aggregate Root typically combines entities but on your model I think RPI is a template or specification outside of the work order aggregate root. If RPI is part of the aggregate then you should put the method on the repository directly and call it wherever, as a repository is a business object in DDD also.
On the second question I believe a WorkOrder Aggregate Root is totally correct for the other "dependent" entities you listed, namely
Sequences
Reworks
Dimensions
QuoteItems
Consumables
I'm interested to know how you implemented this.
Background
Udi Dahan suggests a fetching strategy as a useful pattern to use for data access. I agree.
The concept is to make roles explicit. For example I have an Aggregate Root - Customer. I want customer in several parts of my application - a list of customers to select from, a view of the customer's details, and I want a button to deactivate a customer.
It seems Udi would suggest an interface for each of these roles. So I have ICustomerInList with very basic details, ICustomerDetail which includes the latest 10 products purchased, and IDeactivateCustomer which has a method to deactivate the customer. Each interface exposes just enough of my Customer Aggregate Root to get the job done in each situation. My Customer Aggregate Root implements all these interfaces.
Now I want to implement a fetching strategy for each of these roles. Each strategy can load a different amount of data into my Aggregate Root because it will be behind an interface exposing only the bits of information needed.
The general method to implement this part is to ask a Service Locator or some other style of dependency injection. This code will take the interface you are wanting, for example ICustomerInList, and find a fetching strategy to load it (IStrategyForFetching<ICustomerInList>). This strategy is implemented by a class that knows to only load a Customer with the bits of information needed for the ICustomerInList interface.
So far so good.
Question
What you pass to the Service Locator, or the IStrategyForFetching<ICustomerInList>. All of the examples I see are only selecting one object by a known id. This case is easy, the calling code passes this id through and will get back the specific interface.
What if I want to search? Or I want page 2 of the list of customers? Now I want to pass in more terms that the Fetching Strategy needs.
Possible solutions
Some of the examples I've seen use a predicate - an expression that returns true or false if a particular Aggregate Root should be part of the result set. This works fine for conditions but what about getting back the first n customers and no more? Or getting page 2 of the search results? Or how the results are sorted?
My first reaction is to start adding generic parameters to my IStrategyForFetching<ICustomerInList> It now becomes IStrategyForFetching<TAggregateRoot, TStrategyForSelecting, TStrategyForOrdering>. This quickly becomes complex and ugly. It's further complicated by different repositories. Some repositories only supply data when using a particular strategy for selecting, some only certain types of ordering. I would like to have the flexibility to implement general repositories that can take sorting functions along with specialised repositories that only return Aggregate Roots sorted in a particular fashion.
It sounds like I should apply the same pattern used at the start - How do I make roles explicit? Should I implement a strategy for fetching X (Aggregate Root) using the payload Y (search / ordering parameters)?
Edit (2012-03-05)
This is all still valid if I'm not returning the Aggregate Root each time. If each interface is implemented by a different DTO I can still use IStrategyForFetching. This is why this pattern is powerful - what does the fetching and what is returned doesn't have to map in any way to the aggregate root.
I've ended up using IStrategyForFetching<TEntity, TSpecification>. TEntity is the thing I want to get, TSpecification is how I want to get it.
Have you come across CQRS? Udi is a big proponent of it, and its purpose is to solve this exact issue.
The concept in its most basic form is to separate the domain model from querying. This means that the domain model only comes into play when you want to execute a command / commit a transaction. You don't use data from your aggregates & entities to display information on the screen. Instead, you create a separate data access service (or bunch of them) that contain methods that provide the exact data required for each screen. These methods can accept criteria objects as parameters and therefore do searching with whatever criteria you desire.
A quick sequence of how this works:
A screen shows a list of customers that have made orders in the last week.
The UI calls the CustomerQueryService passing a date as criteria.
The CustomerQueryService executes a query that returns only the fields required for this screen, including the aggregate id of each customer.
The user chooses a customer in the list, and chooses perform the 'Make Important Customer' action /command.
The UI sends a MakeImportantCommand to the Command Service (or Application Service in DDD terms) containing the ID of the customer.
The command service fetches the Customer aggregate from the repository using the ID passed in the command, calls the necessary methods and updates the database.
Building your app using the CQRS architecture opens you up to lot of possibilities regarding performance and scalability. You can take this simple example further by creating separate query databases that contain denormalised tables for every view, eventual consistency & event sourcing. There is a lot of videos/examples/blogs about CQRS that I think would really interest you.
I know your question was regarding 'fetching strategy' but I notice that he wrote this article in 2007, and it's likely that he considers CQRS its sucessor.
To summarise my answer:
Don't try and project cut down DTO's from your domain aggregates. Instead, just create separate query services that give you a tailored query for your needs.
Read up on CQRS (if you haven't already).
To add to the response by David Masters, I think all the fetching strategy interfaces are adding needless complexity. Having the Customer AR implement the various interfaces which are modeled after a UI is a needless constraint on the AR class and you will spend far to much effort trying to enforce it. Moreover, it is a brittle solution. What if a view requires data that while related to Customer, does not belong on the customer class? Does one then coerce the customer class and the corresponding ORM mappings to contain that data? Why not just have a separate set of classes for query purposes and be done with it? This allows you to deal with fetching strategies at the place where they belong - in the repository. Furthermore, what value does the fetching strategy interface abstraction really add? It may be an appropriate model of what is happening in the application, it doesn't help in implementing it.
I'm working a pretty standard e-commerce web site where there are Products and Categories. Each product has an associated category, which is a simple name-value pair object used to categorise a product (e.g. item 1234 may have a category "ballon").
I modelled the product as a root aggregate, which owns and knows how to modify it's category, which is an entity.
However, I ran into a problem where a user needs to be able to search a category. How am I supposed to implement this in DDD? I'm new to DDD but I believe that only root aggregates should be given it's own repository. So that leaves me with 2 options:
Add "SearchCategory" method to the ProductRepository
Implement the search logic as service (i.e. CategoryFinderService)
I personally think option 2 is more logical but it feels weird to have a service that touches database. Somehow I feel that only repository should be allowed to interact with database.
Can someone please tell me what's the best way to implement this?
IMHO, in your Domain Model, Category should not be child of the Product Aggregation. The Product has a Category, but it does not know how to create or edit a Category.
Take this another example. Imagine the ShoppingCart class, it's an aggregate root and contains a list of Items. The ShoppingCart is responsible for adding/editing/removing the Items, in this case you won't need a Repository for the Item class.
Not sure by the way, I'm new to this just like you.
Placing something You don't know where to put into artificial services usually leads to anemic domain model.
I would go with first option. But need for entities without context of root is a sign that You might lack another root.
Don't try to implement everything with your domain model. The domain model is powerful for changing the state of the system, but unnecessary complex for querying. So separate the two. It's called Command Query Responsibility Segregation, or CQRS. And no, it has nothing to do with Event Sourcing, even though they do work nicely together.
I implement scenarios such as this so that I have a domain logic side with the domain objects and repositories (if needed), which do the state changing when something happens, i.e. new order is placed or order is shipped. But when I just need to show something in the UI, for instance the list of the products filtered by the category, it is a simple query and does not involve the domain objects at all. It simply returns Data Transfer Objects (DTO) that do not contain any domain logic at all.