I came across following code:
public class ShippingSaga : Saga<ShippingSagaData>,
ISagaStartedBy<OrderAccepted>,
ISagaStartedBy<CustomerBilledForOrder>
{
public void Handle(CustomerBilledForOrder message)
{
this.Data.CustomerHasBeenBilled = true;
this.Data.CustomerId = message.CustomerId;
this.Data.OrderId = message.OrderId;
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
public void Handle(OrderAccepted message)
{
this.Data.ProductIdsInOrder = message.ProductIdsInOrder;
this.Data.CustomerId = message.CustomerId;
this.Data.OrderId = message.OrderId;
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
private void CompleteIfPossible()
{
if (this.Data.ProductIdsInOrder != null && this.Data.CustomerHasBeenBilled)
{
this.Bus.Send<ShipOrderToCustomer>(
(m =>
{
m.CustomerId = this.Data.CustomerId;
m.OrderId = this.Data.OrderId;
m.ProductIdsInOrder = this.Data.ProductIdsInOrder;
}
));
this.MarkAsComplete();
}
}
}
By the look of things in above code sagas seem to be some kind of higher level co-ordinator/controller of events. Is this true ?If so ,are they used only in Event Driven Architectures? And at last , are sagas parts of INFRASTRUCTURE?
first query seems to be answered. but where do they really belong in terms of responsibility i.e. Infrastrucure ? Domain ? . are these applicable to only EDAs?
Warning: there's some confusion, especially around nservicebus on the definition of "Saga"; see below.
Process Managers are, fundamentally, read models -- you rehyrdrate them from a history of events, and query them for a list of commands that should be run.
They are analogous to a human being looking at a view, and sending commands to the write model. See Rinat Abdullin's essay Evolving Business Processes for more on this viewpoint.
They serve as a description of the business process, which is to say that they identify additional decisions (commands) that should be run by the aggregates. In implementation, they are very much state machines - given event X and event Y, the process manager is in state(XY), and the commands that it will recommend are fixed.
I find them easier to think about if you tease apart the state machine (which is pure logic) from the side effects (interactions with the bus).
public class ShippingSaga : Saga,
ISagaStartedBy<OrderAccepted>,
ISagaStartedBy<CustomerBilledForOrder>
{
public void Handle(CustomerBilledForOrder message)
{
this.process.apply(message);
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
public void Handle(OrderAccepted message)
{
this.process.apply(message);
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
private void CompleteIfPossible()
{
this.process.pendingCommands().each ( m=>
this.Bus.Send(m);
}
}
}
Or equivalently -- if you prefer to think about immutable data structures
public class ShippingSaga : Saga,
ISagaStartedBy<OrderAccepted>,
ISagaStartedBy<CustomerBilledForOrder>
{
public void Handle(CustomerBilledForOrder message)
{
this.process = this.process.apply(message);
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
public void Handle(OrderAccepted message)
{
this.process = this.process.apply(message);
this.CompleteIfPossible();
}
private void CompleteIfPossible()
{
this.process.pendingCommands().each ( m=>
this.Bus.Send(m);
}
}
}
So the shipping process is defined in terms of the business domain, and the NServiceBus "Saga" interfaces that bit of business domain with the bus infrastructure. Isn't separation of concerns wonderful.
I use "Saga" in quotes because -- the NService bus sagas aren't a particularly good fit for the prior use of the term
The term saga is commonly used in discussions of CQRS to refer to a piece of code that coordinates and routes messages between bounded contexts and aggregates. However, for the purposes of this guidance we prefer to use the term process manager to refer to this type of code artifact. There are two reasons for this:
There is a well-known, pre-existing definition of the term saga that has a different meaning from the one generally understood in relation to CQRS.
The term process manager is a better description of the role performed by this type of code artifact.
Related
The application was developed on ASP NET Core 3. To log user actions, I decided to use a single method in the Project class. Faced the problem of using one singleton dbContext from different threads.
Startup.cs
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
string connection = Configuration.GetConnectionString("ConnectionDB");
services.AddDbContext<DataBaseContext>(options => options.UseSqlServer(connection), ServiceLifetime.Transient, ServiceLifetime.Singleton);
services.AddSingleton<Project>();
}
Project.cs
public async Task AddUserLog(string action, string message, int userId)
{
try
{
UserLog userLog = new UserLog()
{
Action = action,
Message = message,
UserId = userId
Datepoint = DateTime.Now
};
_dbContext.UserLog.Add(userLog);
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
await AddSystemLog("Project", "AddUserLog", ex.Message);
}
}
SchemeController.cs
public class SchemeController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly Project _project;
public SchemeController(Project project)
{
_project = project;
}
[Authorize(Policy = "AdvancedControl")]
[HttpPost("[action]")]
public async Task SomeMethode()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
await _project.AddUserLog("Text", "Message", 42);
}
}
}
Already at the second iteration of the loop, I catch an exception in the AddUserLog method:
"A second operation started on this context before a previous operation completed. This is usually caused by different threads using the same instance of DbContext."
I suggest several solutions:
Add the log to the buffer table and then save it to the database by timer. But this is not the best way out;
Block the method while it is being saved to the database.
But I don’t like any of the options.
Please tell me the correct approach in solving this issue.
So, you trying to use shared resource (singleton Project class) to perform parallel operations (save UserLogs) while your shared resource implementation is not thread-safe (exceptions raised).
You have at lease three ways to solve this:
Do not use shared resource: register Project per scope instead of singletone;
Do not perform operations in parallel: seems hard to achieve because you making webapp and you can't force user(s) to wait
Refactor your resource to be thread-safe: add locks/mutexes/buffering... inside Project
There is no one "correct" way - all 3 are correct. Choose one you like (or combine several).
Usually using scoped dbcontext is recommended (because connections are pooled), but it's the creator of app who should decide.
Having an huge customers profile page if two or more users start using same page and start editing big change will happen in my database so planing to implement Threads concept where only one user can use that customer page
i'm aware about threads concept but confused how to implement it
hope i need to use Singleton class as well
Any suggestion or Logic's will be helpful
I'm using Struts,Hibernate frame work
You may use application context to store a flag variable. Action will use its value to allow only one simultaneous execution.
public class TestAction extends ActionSupport implements ApplicationAware {
private static final String APP_BUSY_KEY = "APP_BUSY";
Map<String, Object> map;
#Override
public void setApplication(Map<String, Object> map) {
this.map = map;
}
#Override
public String execute() throws Exception {
if (map.containsKey(APP_BUSY_KEY)) {
return ERROR;
} else {
map.put(APP_BUSY_KEY, "1");
try {
// action logic here
} finally {
map.remove(APP_BUSY_KEY);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
}
}
If you plan to implement similar logic for two requests (lock after displaying values and release lock after submitting new values) then logic will be more complex and you will also need to handle lock release after timeout.
I'm confused with how to synchronise data to the query database.
Let's say I have an aggregate: CreditAccount and some commands may produce CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent:
public class CreditAccount extends AbstractAnnotatedAggregateRoot<Long> {
#AggregateIdentifier
private Long id;
private int balance;
private DateRange effectiveDateRange;
#CommandHandler
public CreditAccount(CreateCreditAccountCommand command) {
apply(new CreditAccountCreatedEvent(command.getAccountId(),
command.getEffectiveDateRange()));
apply(new CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent(command.getAccountId(),
command.getAmount()));
}
#EventHandler
private void on(CreditAccountCreatedEvent event) {
this.id = event.getAccountId();
this.effectiveDateRange = event.getEffectiveDateRange();
}
#EventHandler
private void on(CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent event) {
//notice this line, some domain logic here
this.balance = add(this.balance, event.getAmount());
}
private int add(int current, int amount) {
return current + amount;
}
}
public class CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent {
private final long accountId;
private final int amount;
//omitted constructors and getters
}
And everything works fine on the command handler side. And I set off to the query side but I find I'm writing some duplicate domain logic here:
#Transactional
#Slf4j
public class CreditAccountEventHandler {
private CreditAccountReadModelStore creditAccountReadModelStore;
#EventHandler
public void handle(CreditAccountCreatedEvent event) {
log.info("Received " + event);
creditAccountReadModelStore.store(accountDevriveFrom(event));
}
#EventHandler
public void handle(CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent event) {
log.info("Received " + event);
final CreditAccountReadModel account = creditAccountReadModelStore
.findBy(event.getAccountId());
//notice this line, some domain logic here
account.setBalance(account.getBalance() + event.getAmount());
creditAccountReadModelStore.store(account);
}
//omitted setters and private methods
}
As you may notice, I wrote balance calculation code on both command and query side. My question is that is this inevitable in some situations or I write domain logic in wrong place?
As my study so far, events represent something have occured, so no business logic in them, they're just data holder(but reveal users's intent). So should I add a 'balance' field to CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent and move balance calculation code to command handler method?
public class CreditAccount extends AbstractAnnotatedAggregateRoot<Long> {
//omitted fields
#CommandHandler
public CreditAccount(CreateCreditAccountCommand command) {
apply(new CreditAccountCreatedEvent(command.getAccountId(),
command.getEffectiveDateRange()));
apply(new CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent(command.getAccountId(),
command.getAmount(), add(this.balance, command.getAmount())));
}
#EventHandler
private void on(CreditAccountBalanceChangedEvent event) {
//notice this line, some domain logic here
//event.getAmount() is no use here, just for auditing?
this.balance = event.getBalance();
}
}
In this case, I can remove balance calculation on the query side by using event.getBalance().
Sorry for a screen full question, any idea is appreciate.
I see two options.
One is for the command to contain the change in balance, the command handler to calculate the new balance, and the event to contain the new balance. If nothing is recalculated in the event handler, it ensures that if the business rules change in the future, they do not affect your object's history when when it is reconstituted from the events.
An alternative would be to place the business rules in a separate class that is called from both the command handler and the event handler to avoid duplication, and then to version those business rules -- via subclassing for example. So you could have an abstract class called CalculateBalanceRule with a subclass of CalculateBalanceRuleVersion1 that is initially referenced by both. If the rule changes, you create CalculateBalanceRuleVersion2, change your command handler to reference it, but keep the reference to Version1 in your event handler, so that it will always replay the rules it did originally.
The second approach is definitely more maintenance, but can answer HOW something change, not simply WHAT changed, if that's something that's important to your business.
Edit: A third option is for the event to only contain the new balance like in the first option, but to version the events. So you have BalanceChangedEvent, BalanceChangedEvent_v2, and so on. This is the direction I could take, as I don't really care to keep a history of how things changed, but I do need to account for the possibility that the events themselves might take on additional members or rename its members. Logic is then needed to determine which event version to use to reconstitute the object at each step.
I'm looking for recommendations on how to approach the following design problem (using a fictitious example based on stackoverflow). I'd trying to avoid an anemic domain model and seek general "best-practice" advice for this type of case.
Scenario:
Suppose a new feature is being developed for stackoverflow that sends an email notification to a question's owner whenever his/her question receives 10 upvotes.
The domain object model is something like this:
public class Question
{
string Question { get; set; }
IList<Votes> Upvotes { get; set; }
User Owner { get; set; }
public void AddUpvote(Vote upvote)
{
Upvotes.Add(upvote);
}
}
Potential Implementations:
Change AddUpvote() to take an IEmailerService parameter and perform the logic within the AddUpvote() method.
public void AddUpvote(Vote upvote, IEmailerService emailer)
{
Upvotes.Add(upvote);
if ( Upvotes.Count == 10 )
{
emailer.Send(Owner.EmailAddr);
}
}
Detect this state within AddUpvote() and have AddUpvote() resolve an IEmailService from an IoC container (instead of passing the IEmailerService as a parameter).
Detect this state in the external service object that invokes question.AddUpvote().
public void UpvoteClickHandler(Question question)
{
question.AddUpvote(new Upvote());
if ( question.Upvotes.Count == 10 )
{
_emailer.Send(question.Owner.EmailAddr);
}
}
Your better solution here!
You really don't want to mix these two together since they have separate concerns. Let the Question class care about questions and the message service care about what to do when the voting hits 10, or 20, or 100 or...
The following example is meant for demonstration purposes only, but you will get the point. There is a clear separation of concerns, so the Question class doesn't have to change if the requirements for sending messages changes. Remember according to the SOLID principles, a class should only have one reason to change.
public class Question
{
public string Description { get; set; }
public Int32 Votes { get; set; }
public User Owner { get; set; }
public event EventHandler<QuestionEventArgs> OnUpvote;
private void RaiseUpvoteEvent(QuestionEventArgs e)
{
var handler = OnUpvote;
if (handler != null) handler(this, e);
}
public void Upvote()
{
Votes += 1;
RaiseUpvoteEvent(new QuestionEventArgs(this));
}
}
public class MessageService
{
private Question _question;
public MessageService(Question q)
{
_question = q;
q.OnUpvote += (OnUpvote);
}
private void OnUpvote(object sender, QuestionEventArgs e)
{
if(e.Question.Votes > 10)
SendMessage(e.Question.Owner);
}
}
public class QuestionEventArgs: EventArgs
{
public Question Question { get; set; }
public QuestionEventArgs(Question q)
{
Question = q;
}
}
So there you have it. There are a lot of other ways to accomplish this, but the event model is a great way to go, and it accomplishes the separation of concerns you want in your implementation in order to make maintenance earlier.
Both options 1) and 2) jump out as being the wrong place to send out an email. A Question instance shouldn't know these two things:
It shouldn't know about the policy, ie when to send out an email.
It shouldn't know about the mechanics of notification for a policy, ie the email service.
I know that this is a matter of taste, but you're tying in the Question closely with both a policy as well as the mechanism to send out an email. It would be really hard to move this Question class to another project (like ServerFault, which is StackOverflow's sister site for instance)
I'm interested in this question, because I'm creating a notification system for a Help Desk that I am building. This is what I did in my system:
Create a NotificationManager (Basically, completely move the concern of notifications to a separate class).
public Class NotificationManager
{
public void NotificationManager(NotificationPolicy policy, IEmailService emailer)
{
}
}
I then did something along the lines of this (The UpvoteClickHandler has a dependency to a NotificationManager instance):
public void UpvoteClickHandler(Question question)
{
question.AddUpvote(new Upvote());
_notificationManager.Notify(Trigger.UpvoteAdded, question);
}
All the UpvoteClickHandler does is tell NotificationManager that an upvote was added to question and let NotificationManager determine whether and how it should send out an email.
The answer depends on your fundamental approach to application and object design. And (edit here) what you view as your most important trait of the system. Looks like you have data, questions, and business rules, up votes. Not question objects at all. So you should treat your data as data and allow data tools to work on them, by not mixing behavior into them. Traditional object design would have all the behaviors and data in the object, so sending eMail would belong in the object. (option 1 and 2) I guess this is the black box, or self contained object approach. Modern practices, as I've come to learn, has objects as simple data holders. Which are meant to be moved around, persisted, transformed and have stuff done to them. Perhaps living as little more than structs in C. The behavior comes from the services and transformations that are applied to the simple objects.
HI all,
In my opinion "sends an email notification to a question's owner whenever his/her question receives 10 upvotes" is domain logic and therfore it should be into domain object, in order to avoid an anemic domain.
It's the action of sending the email (i.e. communicate with smtp server) that MUST go into the infrastructure layer.
So i think that option 1 is not totally wrong. Keep in mind that you can always test your object by passing a mock implementation of the IEmailerService.
Best Regards,
Stefano
I was looking at Prism EventAggregator and its' great. I part i was most concerned was its capability to marshal thread correctly to UI thread.
I was wondering if i can use this capability to provide module developers a class which could be used to create threads in a similar way as BackgroundWorker. Interface of class can be somewhat similar to
public interface IMyTask
{
event DoWorkEventHandler DoWork;
event RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler RunWorkerCompleted;
void RunTaskAsync(object obj);
}
I have kept types similar to backgroundworker for better understanding. In implementation i am registering taskstart and taskcomplete events
public class TaskStartEventPayload
{
public SubscriptionToken token { get; set; }
public object Argument { get; set; }
}
public class TaskStartEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<TaskStartEventPayload>
{
}
public class TaskCompleteEventPayload
{
public SubscriptionToken token { get; set; }
public object Argument { get; set; }
public object Result { get; set; }
}
public class TaskCompleteEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<TaskCompleteEventPayload>
{
}
In the constructor for the MyTask class i take which thread the completion is required on as
public MyTask(IEventAggregator eventAggregator, bool isUICompletion)
{
if (eventAggregator == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("eventAggregator");
}
_eventAggregator = eventAggregator;
_eventAggregator.GetEvent<TaskStartEvent>().Subscribe(TaskStartHandler, ThreadOption.BackgroundThread, false, new Predicate<TaskStartEventPayload>(StartTokenFilter));
if(isUICompletion)
_token = _eventAggregator.GetEvent<TaskCompleteEvent>().Subscribe(TaskCompleteHandler, ThreadOption.UIThread,true,new Predicate<TaskCompleteEventPayload>(CompleteTokenFilter));
else
_token = _eventAggregator.GetEvent<TaskCompleteEvent>().Subscribe(TaskCompleteHandler, ThreadOption.BackgroundThread, true, new Predicate<TaskCompleteEventPayload>(CompleteTokenFilter));
}
here i am registering with filters where filter function returns the event only if it has Payload has same token as while got while subscribing.
further I use
public void RunTaskAsync(object obj)
{
//create payload
_eventAggregator.GetEvent<TaskStartEvent>().Publish(payload);
}
public void TaskStartHandler(TaskStartEventPayload t)
{
//fire dowork and create payload
DoWork(this, args);
_eventAggregator.GetEvent<TaskCompleteEvent>().Publish(tc);
}
public void TaskCompleteHandler(TaskCompleteEventPayload t)
{
RunWorkerCompleted(this, args);
}
This class can be used as
MyTask et = new MyTaskagg, true);
et.DoWork += new System.ComponentModel.DoWorkEventHandler(et_DoWork);
et.RunWorkerCompleted += new System.ComponentModel.RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(et_RunWorkerCompleted);
et.RunTaskAsync("Test");
Benefit I see in this approach is
1. It uses threadpool so no overhead of creating threads as in backgroundWorker.
2. Proper thread marshalling in case RunWorkerCompleted to be executed on UI thread.
Please advice if this would be correct to use eventaggregator as Threader.
This will work, although it's code you have to debug for very little performance gain. Micro-optimizing is rarely worth the effort and support costs in my opinion.
EventAggregator is meant to be a message bus for your application and I typically prefer to use things for their original intention, lest I have to debug a lot of code, but that's my personal preference.
Event Aggregator is going to have to work a little harder than it is meant to cleaning up all of those subscriptions, which will likely exceed any performance gain you get from the thread pooling, but that is just a guess.