Let's say two domain objects: Product and ProductVariety (with data such as color, size etc). The relationship between these two is one-to-many. Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed. From the implementation point of view, however, it is better to have some sort identification for the ProductVariaty so that we know which ProductVariety is selected and so on. Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
The following is a code segment to illustrate this situation.
#Embeddable
class ProductVariety {...}
#Entity
class Product {
#ElementCollection
private Set<ProductVariety> varities;
...
}
Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed
That's not quite the right spelling. In almost all cases (many nines), Value Object should be immutable; its data never changes.
Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
"It depends".
There's nothing conceptually wrong with having an identifier be part of the immutable state of the object. For example, PANTONE 5395 C is an Identifier (value type) that is unique to a particular Color (value type).
However, for an identifier like PANTONE 5395 C to have value, it needs to be semantically stable. Changing the mapping of the identifier to the actual color spectrum elements destroys the meaning of previous messages about color. If the identifier is "wrong", then the proper thing to do is deprecate the identifier and nominate a replacement.
Put simply, you can't repaint the house by taking the label off the old paint can and putting it on a new one.
In that case, there's no great advantage to using the identifier vs the entire value object. But its not wrong to do so, either.
On the other hand, if you are really modeling a mapping, and you want to follow changes that happen over time -- that's pretty much the definition of an entity right there.
What it really depends on is "cost to the business". What are the trade offs involved, within the context of the problem you are trying to solve?
Note: if you really do find yourself in circumstances where you are considering something like this, be sure to document your cost benefit analysis, so that the next developer that comes along has a trail of breadcrumbs to work from.
Related
I was trying to understand DDD value objects and entities, and have a minor doubt in that. I've read in a lot of articles that value objects does not have identity. I wanted clarity on whether that the identity referred here is a single attribute or a any composite attributes.
Lets say I have an inventory management service which has a business transaction called "Inventory Adjustment", what it does is simply adjusts the quantity of items at your warehouse. You can create an adjustment with multiple line items, each line item will have an ItemID and Quantity fields.
Note: Lets assume that an item can occur only once in an adjustment, meaning an adjustment cannot have multiple line items with same Item ID.
The user can edit an adjustment line item, delete line items and add new line items as well.
In this context, is adjustmentLineItem a value object OR an entity inside adjustment root aggregate?
The confusion I have is when we say VOs should not have an identity, does that mean it should not have an ID field or a composite identity as well. Because in my case, I would not need an ID field for the line item object, the AdjustmentID + ItemID serves as an identifier for me.
Also, is it fine to have the parent entity identifier inside a VO (like adjustmentID)?
Not related to this context, in general what is the reason why VOs should not have identities?
NOTE: I am relatively new to DDD and my understandings might be wrong.
There's a difference between identifier and identity.
An identifier is a value that identify something, is what an entity use to track its identity.
The identity instead is what tells you that an entity is different from another one, you can use a number to do it (like in case of sql db sequences) or some UUID, or basically use a value that acts as an identifier
Difference between value objects and entities reside in the identity of the latter.
If we have an entity, let's say a Person, and we do a change (mutate) to it (eg. change name), it still remain the same entity (a person changing name still remain the same person). That is not true for value objects, if we have an Address and we change its street it is a different Address.
When we reify this abstraction into code, we need something to track the identity of an entity, to be able to check and confront it with another one. In these cases we add a value in the entity that acts as an identifier, something that we know will stay the same for the entire lifecycle of the entity.
So the identifier can be seen as a value and it can be treat as such.
Then going back to the questions:
It seems to me that in your case the InventoryAdjustment is the entity (it has its own identity), and it contains the list of AdjustmentLineItem that could be seen as a value, containing the ItemId that is also a value.
AdjustmentLineItem is a VO itself
Code to work with things not having an identity is simpler as they can easily be immutable, avoiding a lot of issues (you can look for the immutability topic to understand them, or there's this famous talk about Values)
A final note about this rule:
Lets assume that an item can occur only once in an adjustment
This enforce the fact that the InventoryAdjustment is an entity, and this rule is one of its invariants.
The InventoryAdjustment has a value in it being a List<AdjustmentLineItem>, and could check the rule when someone try to mutate it. When doing domain models, the access for editing purposes to the state of the entity should be disallowed, no setter methods and make impossible for external code of the InventoryAdjustment to do things like:
inventoryAdjustment.getAdjustmentLineItemList().add(anAdjustmentLineItem)
but rather expose methods to do mutation, and internally check invariants:
inventoryAdjustment.addAdjustmentLineItem(anAdjustmentLineItem)
The principle of always valid domain model dictates that value object and entities should be self validating to never be in an invalid state.
This requires creating some kind of wrapper, sometimes, for primitive values. However it seem to me that this might break the ubiquitous language.
For instance say I have 2 entities: Hotel and House. Each of those entities has images associated with it which respect the following rules:
Hotels must have at least 5 images and no more than 20
Houses must have at least 1 image and no more than 10
This to me entails the following classes
class House {
HouseImages images;
// ...
}
class Hotel {
HotelImages images;
}
class HouseImages {
final List<Image> images;
HouseImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 1),
assert(images.length <= 10);
}
class HotelImages {
final List<Image> images;
HotelImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 5),
assert(images.length <= 20);
}
Doesn't that break the ubiquitous languages a bit ? It just feels a bit off to have all those classes that are essentially prefixed (HotelName vs HouseName, HotelImages vs HouseImages, and so on). In other words, my value object folder that once consisted of x, y, z, where x, y and z where also documented in a lexicon document, now has house_x, hotel_x, house_y, hotel_y, house_z, hotel_z and it doesn't look quite as english as it was when it was x, y, z.
Is this common or is there something I misunderstood here maybe ? I do like the assurance it gives though, and it actually caught some bugs too.
There is some reasoning you can apply that usually helps me when deciding to introduce a value object or not. There are two very good blog articles concerning this topic I would like to recommend:
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/value-objects-when-to-create-one/
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/collections-primitive-obsession/
I would like to address your concrete example based on the heuristics taken from the mentioned article:
Are there more than one primitive values that encapsulate a concept, i.e. things that always belong together?
For instance, a Coordinate value object would contain Latitude and Longitude, it would not make sense to have different places of your application knowing that these need to be instantiated and validated together as a whole. A Money value object with an amount and a currency identifier would be another example. On the other hand I would usually not have a separate value object for the amount field as the Money object would already take care of making sure it is a reasonable value (e.g. positive value).
Is there complexity and logic (like validation) that is worth being hidden behind a value object?
For instance, your HotelImages value object that defines a specific collection type caught my attention. If HotelImages would not be used in different spots and the logic is rather simple as in your sample I would not mind adding such a collection type but rather do the validation inside the Hotel entity. Otherwise you would blow up your application with custom value objects for basically everything.
On the other hand, if there was some concept like an image collection which has its meaning in the business domain and a set of business rules and if that type is used in different places, for instance, having a ImageCollection value object that is used by both Hotel and House it could make sense to have such a value object.
I would apply the same thinking concerning your question for HouseName and HotelName. If these have no special meaning and complexity outside of the Hotel and House entity but are just seen as some simple properties of those entities in my opinion having value objects for these would be an overkill. Having something like BuildingName with a set of rules what this name has to follow or if it even is consisting of several primitive values then it would make sense again to use a value object.
This relates to the third point:
Is there actual behaviour duplication that could be avoided with a value object?
Coming from the last point thinking of actual duplication (not code duplication but behaviour duplication) that can be avoided with extracting things into a custom value object can also make sense. But in this case you always have to be careful not to fall into the trap of incidental duplication, see also [here].1
Does your overall project complexity justify the additional work?
This needs to be answered from your side of course but I think it's good to always consider if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you have a simple CRUD like application that is not expected to change a lot and will not be long lived all the mentioned heuristics also have to be used with the project complexity in mind.
A few days ago a friend pointed out to me that I had a wrong idea of composition in UML. She was completely right, so I decided to find out what more I could have been wrong about. Right now, there is one more thing that I have doubts about: I have a circular dependency in my codebase that I would like to present in UML form. But how.
In my case the following is true:
Both A and B have a list of C
C has a reference to both A and B to get information from.
C cannot exist if either A or B stops to exist
Both A and B remain to exist after C is deleted from A and/or B
To model this, I've come up with the following UML (I've ommited multiplicities for now, to not crowd the diagram.)
My question is, is this the right way to model such relations?
Problems
Some facts to keep in mind:
Default multiplicity makes your model invalid. A class may only be composed in one other class. When you don't specify multiplicity, you get [1..1]. That default is sad, but true.
The UML spec doesn't define what open-diamond aggregation means.
Your model has many duplicate properties. There is no need for any of the properties in the attribute compartments, as there are already unnamed properties at the ends of every association.
Corrections
Here is a reworking of your model to make it more correct:
Notice the following:
The exclusive-or constraint between the associations means only one of them can exist at a time.
Unfortunately, the multiplicities allow an instance of C to exist without being composed by A or B. (See the reworked model below.)
The property names at the ends of all associations explicitly name what were unnamed in your model. (I also attempted to indicate purpose in the property names.)
The navigability arrows prevent multiple unwanted properties without resorting to duplicative attributes.
Suggested Design
If I correctly understand what your model means, here is how I would probably reverse the implementation into design:
Notice the following:
Class D is abstract (the class name is in italics), meaning it can have no direct instances.
The generalization set says:
An instance cannot be multiply classified by A and B. (I.e., A and B are {disjoint}.)
An instance of D must be an instance of one of the subclasses. (I.e., A and B are {complete}, which is known as a covering axiom.)
The subclasses inherit the ownedC property from class D.
The composing class can now have a multiplicity of [1..1], which no longer allows an instance of C to exist without being composed by an A or a B.
Leave away the open diamonds and make them normal associations. These are no shared aggregations but simple associations. The composite aggregations are ok.
In general there is not much added value in showing aggregations at all. The semantic added value is very low. In the past this was a good hint to help the garbage collection dealing with unneeded objects. But nowadays almost all target languages have built-in efficient garbage collectors. Only in cases where you want an explicit deletion of the aggregated objects you should use the composite aggregation.
I don't understand what the relationship between the two tables in the linked picture mean. And how can I code it?
It's with
virtual public Propriete Proprietes { get; set; }
Geert writes true things, but I think, you need more practical advice.
That one-directional arrow means, that the Enquette class has a field or method, that are of the class Propriete. In 99% it is a simply field of that type. Contemporary standard offers to use a point on the other side of the line for this.
The fact, that the arrow has no name on it, often means that the name of the field is propriete, or Propriete, according to the style accepted by the language and your company. (it is not required in UML standard, but it is widely used). According to the last paragraph of the question, it seems, your company uses this rule, too.
The fact, that there is no arrow on the other end of the line, does not mean, that there is no field or method in Propriete class that has a class of Enquette. (Though it meant that in 90-ties). It merely means we haven't decided yet if there are such fields or not. Or maybe, we consider it to be not important. I.e. it is undefined. The known lack of such connection must be shown by a cross instead of an arrowhead.
So, somewhere in Enquette you have a line:
Propriete propriete;
or
Propriete* Propriete; //if you are in C++
or even maybe
Propriete** Propriete;
or cited by you
virtual public Propriete Proprietes { get; set; } // apparently, C#
It could be either static/class field or instance field - it is not defined in the diagram.
And in the class Propriete there can exist the line:
Enquete enquete; // or some of the mentioned variants
And you are leaving the decision about its existence to the coder.
Notice, that a line without arrowheads means that really there are fields (or methods) for both ends. Simply we don't draw arrowheads at all if the line should show two of them.
So, really, you have a mistake in the question. It is NOT an unidirectional relationship. It is an unidirectional arrow showing a relationship, that MAY BE unidirectional.
The arrow at the end of the Association between the Classes (not tables) indicates that this end is navigable.
This is defined as an operation the Property at the end of the Association. The definition in UML 2.5 specs says:
isNavigable() : Boolean
The query isNavigable() indicates whether it is possible to navigate across the property.
body: not classifier->isEmpty() or association.navigableOwnedEnd->includes(self)
Furthermore it says about the Association Notation:
An open arrowhead on the end of an Association indicates the end is
navigable. A small x on the end of an Association indicates the end is
not navigable.
And about the Navigability on an Association
Navigability means that instances participating in links at runtime
(instances of an Association) can be accessed efficiently from
instances at the other ends of the Association. The precise mechanism
by which such efficient access is achieved is implementation specific.
If an end is not navigable, access from the other ends may or may not
be possible, and if it is, it might not be efficient.
And to conclude something to keep in mind because this convention is still often used:
Navigability notation was often used in the past according to an
informal convention, whereby non-navigable ends were assumed to be
owned by the Association whereas navigable ends were assumed to be
owned by the Classifier at the opposite end. This convention is now
deprecated. Aggregation type, navigability, and end ownership are
separate concepts, each with their own explicit notation. Association
ends owned by classes are always navigable, while those owned by
associations may be navigable or not.
So now you should know what it means. How to code it depends on the programming language, the company standards, the architectural layer, your creativity, etc..
I have just started reading DDD. I am unable to completely grasp the concept of Entity vs Value objects.. Can someone please explain the problems (maintainability, performance.. etc) a system could face when a Value object is designed as a Entity object? Example would be great...
Reduced to the essential distinction, identity matters for entities, but does not matter for value objects. For example, someone's Name is a value object. A Customer entity might be composed of a customer Name (value object), List<Order> OrderHistory (List of entities), and perhaps a default Address (typically a value object). The Customer Entity would have an ID, and each order would have an ID, but a Name should not; generally, within the object model anyway, the identity of an Address probably does not matter.
Value objects can typically be represented as immutable objects; changing one property of a value object essentially destroys the old object and creates a new one, because you're not as concerned with identity as with content. Properly, the Equals instance method on Name would return "true" as long as the object's properties are identical to the properties of another instance.
However, changing some attribute of an entity like Customer doesn't destroy the customer; a Customer entity is typically mutable. The identity remains the same (at least once the object has been persisted).
You probably create value objects without realizing it; anytime you are representing some aspect of an Entity by creating a fine-grained class, you've got a value object. For example, a class IPAddress, which has some constraints on valid values but is composed of simpler datatypes, would be a value object. An EmailAddress could be a string, or it could be a value object with its own set of behaviors.
It's quite possible that even items that have an identity in your database don't have an identity in your object model. But the simplest case is a composite of some attributes that make sense together. You probably don't want to have Customer.FirstName, Customer.LastName, Customer.MiddleInitial and Customer.Title when you can compose those together as Customer.Name; they'll probably be multiple fields in your database by the time you think about persistence, but your object model doesn't care.
Any object that is collectively defined by all of it attributes is a value object. If any of the attributes change you have a new instance of a value object. This is why value objects are defined as immutable.
If the object is not fully defined by all of its attributes then there are a subset of attributes that make up the identity of the object. The remaining attributes can change without redefining the object. This kind of object cannot be defined at immutable.
A simpler way of making the distinction is to think of value objects as static data that will never change and entities as data that evolves in your application.
Value Types :
Value types do not exist on his own, depends on Entity types.
Value Type object belongs to an Entity Type Object.
The lifespan of a value type instance is bounded by the lifespan of the owning entity instance.
Three Value types: Basic(primitive datatypes), Composite(Address) and Collection(Map, List, Arrays)
Entities:
Entity types can exist on his own (Identity)
An entity has its own life-cycle. It may exist independently of any other entity.
For example: Person, Organisation, College, Mobile, Home etc.. every object has its own identity
I don't know if the following is correct, but I would say that in the case of an Address object, we want to use it as a Value Object instead of an Entity because changes to the entity would be reflected on all linked objects (a Person for instance).
Take this case: You are living in your house with some other people. If we would use Entity for Address, I would argue that there would be one unique Address that all Person objects link to. If one person moves out, you want to update his address. If you would update the properties of the Address Entity, all people would have a different address. In the case of a Value Object, we would not be able to edit the Address (since it is immutable) and we would be forced to provide a new Address for that Person.
Does this sound right? I must say that I was/am also still confused about this difference, after reading the DDD book.
Going one step further, how would this be modelled in the database? Would you have all properties of the Address object as columns in the Person table or would you create a separate Address table that would also have a unique identifier? In the latter case, the people living in the same house would each have a different instance of an Address object, but those objects would be the same except for their ID property.
address can be entity or value object that depends on the busiess process. address object can be entity in courier service application but address can be value object in some other application. in courier application identity matters for address object
3 distinction between Entities and Value Objects
Identifier vs structural equality:
Entities have identifier,entities are the same if they have the same
identifier.
Value Objects on beyond the hand have structural equality, we consider two
value objects equal when all the fields are the same. Value objects cannot
have identifier.
Mutability vs immutability:
Value Objects are immutable data structures whereas entities change during
their life time.
Lifespan: Value Objects Should belong to Entities
In a very simple sentence I can say, we have three types of equality:
Identifier equality: a class has id filed and two objects are compared with their id field value.
Reference equality: if a reference to two objects has a same address in memory.
Structural equality: two objects are equal if all members of them are matched.
Identifier equality refers only to Entity and structural equality refers to Value Object only. In fact Value Objects do not have id and we can use them interchangeably. also value objects must be immutable and entities can be mutable and value objects will not have nay table in database.
I asked about this in another thread and I think I'm still confused. I may be confusing performance considerations with data modelling. In our Cataloging application, a Customer doesn't change until it needs to. That sounds dumb - but the 'reads' of customer data far outnumber the 'writes' and since many many web requests are all hitting on the 'active set' of objects, I don't want to keep loading Customers time and again. So I was headed down an immutable road for the Customer object - load it, cache it, and serve up the same one to the 99% of (multi-threaded) requests that want to see the Customer. Then, when a customer changes something, get an 'editor' to make a new Customer and invalidate the old one.
My concern is if many threads see the same customer object and it is mutable, then when one thread starts to change it mayhem ensues in the others.
My problems now are, 1) is this reasonable, and 2) how best to do this without duplicating a lot of code about the properties.
Consider the following examples from Wikipedia, in order to better understand the difference between Value Objects and Entities:
Value Object: When people exchange dollar bills, they generally do not
distinguish between each unique bill; they only are concerned about the face
value of the dollar bill. In this context, dollar bills are Value Objects. However,
the Federal Reserve may be concerned about each unique bill; in this context each
bill would be an entity.
Entity: Most airlines distinguish each seat uniquely on every flight. Each seat is
an entity in this context. However, Southwest Airlines, EasyJet and Ryanair do
not distinguish between every seat; all seats are the same. In this context, a seat is
actually a Value Object.