RPM1984 in this question speaks about POCO are "persistent ignorant" objects. But he doen´t speak about how much logic can hold. For example:
class Person {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
Or this:
class Person {
private string firstName = string.Empty;
public string Firstname {
get
{
return this.firstname;
}
set {
if (value.Length > 26)
{
throw new System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationException("Firstname is too long");
}
this.firstname = value;
}
}
}
Both are "persistent igonrant". The first one is for sure a POCO class. But is it the second a valid POCO? It has some logic but it could be persisted without problem and its logic is not more than a validation. Can it be considered POCO?
Thanks
Yes, the second one is a valid POCO, because it doesn't use a persistence specific detail. The whole point of POCOs is to say that a certain object doesn't depend on a db access library. If, for example, you would decorate Person with an EF specific attribute then, you would have to reference EF everywhere you'd use that class.
Related
I am looking for advice on where to add validation rules for domain entities, and best practices for implementation. I did search and did not find what i was looking for, or i missed it.
I would like to know what the recommended way is for validating that properties are not null, in a certain range, or length, etc... I have seen several ways using an IsValid() and other discussions about enforcing in the constructor so the entity is never in an invalid state, or using preprocessing and postprocessing, and others using FluentValidation api, how invariants impact DRY and SRP.
Can someone give me a good example of where to put these sorts of checks, when using a App Service, Bounded Context, Domain Service, Aggregate Root, Entity layering. Where does this go, and what is the best approach?
Thanks.
When modeling your domain entity, it is best to consider real-world implications. Let's say you are dealing with a Employee entity.
Employees need a name
We know that in the real-world an employee must always have a name. It is impossible for an employee not to have a name. In other words, one cannot 'construct' an employee without specifying its name. So, use parameterised constructors! We also know that an employees name cannot change - so we prevent this from even happening by creating a private setter. Using the .NET type system to verify your employee is a very strong form of validation.
public string Name { get; private set; }
public Employee(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
Valid names have some rules
Now it starts to get interesting. A name has certain rules. Let's just take the simplistic route and assume that a valid name is one which is not null or empty. In the code example above, the following business rule is not validated against. At this point, we can still currently create invalid employees! Let's prevent this from EVER occurring by amending our setter:
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
private set
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value))
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("value", "Employee name cannot be an empty value");
}
name = value;
}
}
Personally I prefer to have this logic in the private setter than in the constructor. The setter is not completely invisible. The entity itself can still change it, and we need to ensure validity. Also, always throw exceptions!
What about exposing some form of IsValid() method?
Take the above Employee entity. Where and how would an IsValid() method work?
Would you allow an invalid Employee to be created and then expect the developer to check it's validity with an IsValid() check? This is a weak design - before you know it, nameless Employees are going to be cruising around your system causing havoc.
But perhaps you would like to expose the name validation logic?
We don't want to catch exceptions for control flow. Exceptions are for catastrophic system failure. We also don't want to duplicate these validation rules in our codebase. So, perhaps exposing this validation logic isn't such a bad idea (but still not the greatest!).
What you could do is provide a static IsValidName(string) method:
public static bool IsValidName(string name)
{
return (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value))
}
Our property would now change somewhat:
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
private set
{
if (!Employee.IsValidName(value))
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("value", "Employee name cannot be an empty value");
}
name = value;
}
}
But there is something fishy about this design...
We now are starting to spawn validation methods for individual properties of our entity. If a property has all kinds of rules and behavior attached to it, perhaps this is a sign that we can create an value object for it!
public PersonName : IEquatable<PersonName>
{
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
private set
{
if (!PersonName.IsValid(value))
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("value", "Person name cannot be an empty value");
}
name = value;
}
}
private PersonName(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public static PersonName From(string name)
{
return new PersonName(name);
}
public static bool IsValid(string name)
{
return !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value);
}
// Don't forget to override .Equals
}
Now our Employee entity can be simplified (I have excluded a null reference check):
public Employee
{
public PersonName Name { get; private set; }
public Employee(PersonName name)
{
Name = name;
}
}
Our client code can now look something like this:
if(PersonName.IsValid(name))
{
employee = new Employee(PersonName.From(name));
}
else
{
// Send a validation message to the user or something
}
So what have we done here?
We have ensured that our domain model is always consistent. Extremely important. An invalid entity cannot be created. In addition, we have used value objects to provide further 'richness'. PersonName has given the client code more control and more power and has also simplified Employee.
I built a library that can help you.
https://github.com/mersocarlin/ddd-validation
I need to set an event handler on objects that get instantiated by OrmLite, and can't figure out a good way to do it short of visiting every Get method in a repo (which obviously is not a good way).
To give some background - say I have a class User, which is pulled from database; it also implements INotifyPropertyChanged. I want to assign a handler to that event. Having it auto-populated from Funq would be ideal, but of course OrmLite doesn't ask Funq to hydrate the new object.
So I'm stuck.
Any hints in a right direction would be appreciated.
It sounds to me like you're mixing in presentation logic with your data access logic. If I was in your position I would not attempt to implement INotifyPropertyChanged on a model (such as your User class). Instead I would create a ViewModel and place the databinding logic there (MVVM Style).
Having INotifyPropertyChanged on the data model is not quite logical when you get down to it. If I were to update the database record it would not fire this event for example (but the property has changed). It makes a lot more sense on a ViewModel.
Beyond solving your original issue it also makes building complex screens a lot easier by letting you aggregate, compose, and filter data for display purposes. If you need to pull in information from your database, a RSS feed, a stock ticker web API, and twitter you can do so in your ViewModel.
public class User
{
[AutoIncrement]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class UserViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string _name;
public UserViewModel(User user)
{
_name = user.Name;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set {
if (value == _name) return;
_name = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Name");
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
[NotifyPropertyChangedInvocator]
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
if (PropertyChanged != null) PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
Small Note: This answer was written in the context of display data on a screen with a ViewModel, however, the same concept applies to observing model changes for any purpose.
What is the best approach to bind US State in WPF (in ListBox or in DropDownList)? Should I use DataTable to bind this data? Is binding DataTable to WPF object right programming approach? Or Should I use class/object. I mean get data from database and convert it to Generic Object List and then bind this list to WPF object?
Thanks,
public class States
{
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
}
private string id;
public string Id
{
get
{
return id;
}
}
}
List<States> states = new List<States>();
//get from database
foreach( states DataSource)
{
name = "Alabama";
id = "1";
}
// next Cache list of states for better performance
Many ways...
One approach is to use a list class. get from data source, next cache for better performance.
Is it possible to use AutoMapper with Immutable types?
For example my Domain type is immutable and I want to map my view type to this.
I believe it is not but just want this confirmed.
Also as it is best practice to have your domain types immutable, what is the best practice when mapping your view types to domain types?
I typically do the mapping from view types to domain types by hand, as I'll typically be working through a more complex interface, using methods and so on. If you use AutoMapper to go from view to domain, you're now locked in to an anemic domain model, whether you've intentionally decided to or not.
Suppose that you really did want an immutable property on your Domain type, say Id. Your domain type might look something like this:
public class DomainType
{
public DomainType(int id)
{
Id = id;
}
public int Id { get; }
// other mutable properties
// ...
}
Then you can use ConstructUsing using a public constructor of your choice, such as:
CreateMap<ViewType, DomainType>()
.ConstructUsing(vt => new DomainType(vt.Id));
Then map all the mutable properties in the normal way
AutoMapper relies on property setters to do its work, so if you have read-only properties, AutoMapper won't be of much use.
You could override the mapping behaviour and, for example, configure it to invoke a specific constructor, but that basically defeats the purpose of AutoMapper because then you are doing the mapping manually, and you've only succeeded in adding a clumsy extra step in the process.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that your domain model is immutable. How do you update it? Is the entire application read-only? And if so, why would you ever need to map to your domain model as opposed to from? An immutable domain model sounds... pretty useless.
P.S. I'm assuming that you mean this AutoMapper and not the auto-mapping feature in Fluent NHibernate or even some other totally different thing. If that's wrong then you should be more specific and add tags for your platform/language.
We have immutable objects using the builder pattern. Mapping them takes a little more boilerplate code, but it is possible
// ViewModel
public class CarModel : IVehicleModel
{
private CarModel (Builder builder)
{
LicensePlate = builder.LicensePlate;
}
public string LicensePlate { get; }
//
public Builder
{
public string LicensePlate { get; set; }
}
}
// Model
public class CarViewModel : IVehicleViewModel
{
private CarViewModel (Builder builder)
{
LicensePlate = builder.LicensePlate ;
}
public ILicensePlate LicensePlate { get; }
//
public Builder
{
public ILicensePlate LicensePlate { get; set; }
}
}
Our AutoMapper Profiles have three mappings registered:
CreateMap<IVehicleModel, CarViewModel.Builder>();
CreateMap<CarViewModel.Builder, IVehicleViewModel>().ConvertUsing(x => x.Build());
CreateMap<IVehicleModel, IVehicleViewModel>().ConvertUsing<VehicleModelTypeConverter>();
The VehicleModelTypeConverter then defines a two stage conversion:
public IVehicleViewModel Convert(IVehicleModel source, IVehicleViewModel destination,
ResolutionContext context)
{
var builder = context.Mapper.Map<CarViewModel.Builder>(source);
var model = context.Mapper.Map<IVehicleViewModel>(builder);
return model;
}
(An implementation of ITypeListConverter<string, ILicensePlate> carries out that mapping).
Usage in our system is as normal:
var result = _mapper<IVehicleViewModel>(_carModel);
This is using AutoMapper v7.0.1
You can use Automapper with classes or records that have properties init only setters. This is new in C# 9.0.
Automapper can set the properties at object creation because the properties have init only setters, but after Automapper has mapped them, they are locked in (immutable).
https://www.tsunamisolutions.com/blog/c-90-records-and-dtos-a-match-made-in-redmond
We have a class Event (it's actually named differently, but I'm just making abstraction):
public class Event
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public EventType EventType { get; set; }
}
We need to build an instance of a Message class with this object, but depending on the EventType, we use a different builder:
switch (event.EventType)
{
case EventType.First:
message = FirstMessageBuilder.Build(event);
break;
case EventType.Second:
message = SecondMessageBuilder.Build(event);
break;
}
Do you think this is acceptable, or should we take the following approach:
Make an abstract class:
public class Event
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public abstract Message BuildMessage();
}
Then derive two classes: class FirstMessage and class SecondMessage and make the domain objects responsible for building the message.
I hope it isn't too abstract. The bottom line is we need to transform one class to another. A simple mapper won't do, because there are properties with XML content and such (due to a legacy application making the events). Just accept what we're trying to do here.
The real question is: can a domain object be responsible for such a transformation, or would you not recommend it? I would avoid the ugly switch statement, but add complexity somewhere else.
Whilst I agree with Thomas, you might want to look at the following design patterns to see if they help you:
Vistor Pattern
Double-Dispatch Pattern
Builder Pattern
Strictly speaking, a domain object shouldn't be responsible for anything other than representing the domain. "Changing type" is clearly a technical issue and should be done by some kind of service class, to maintain a clear separation of concerns...
In order to gain the readability of
var message = eventInstance.AsMessage();
as well following the single responsibility principle, you could define AsMessage() as an extension method of the event type.
There are few possible solutions. To use abstract factory:
public interface IMessageFactory
{
Message Create();
}
public class FirstMessageFactory : IMessageFactory
{
public Message Create()
{
//...
}
}
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IMessageFactory _factory;
public SomeService(IMessageFactory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
var message = _factory.Create();
//...
}
}
Now you can wire IoC container to right factory for requested service.
To use Assembler which makes the transformation:
public interface IAssembler<TSource, TDestination>
{
TDestination Transform(TSource source);
}
This is quite similar to factory pattern, but if you are dependent on EventType, its possible to do it like:
public interface IAssembler<TEventType>
{
object Transform(object source);
}
I would encapsulate the logic into a separate Factory/Builder class, and use an extension method on Event to call the builder.
This would give you the best of both worlds.