How do we solve many to many problems using OptaPlanner 6? For example, in cloud balancing example, what do we need to do if we want to put each process on multiple computers/threads? More like parallel execution of the process.
The same way as you solve it if you want to store a many2many relationship in a relational database: create an extra Class.
For example: In cloud balancing, create a class Assignment that has a many2one relationship to Process and a many2one relationship to Computer. In curriculum course scheduling, this is already the case: there is a many2many relationship between Course and Period/Room, which is implemented by the class Lecture.
Now, where it becomes interesting is if the number of that many2many-class instances is variable during planning, because that means that your number of planning entities is variable. In curriculum course scheduling, this is not the case: each Course has a fixed amount of lectures (and each Lecture has an indexInCourse) and those lectures are initialized before solve() is called.
If the number of planning entities is variable: OptaPlanner 6.0 is designed for that (there is plumbing in ScoreDirector, Selector, ...), but not tested yet. In a future version we'll add such an example and integration tests and stress tests...
Related
I have a few microservices that reuse similar models i.e.
RepairService
InventoryService
AuctionService
An Item (Cars, Bikes, etc) can be found in each of these services and each time I add new properties or a new item type, I then end up duplicating these models in 3 places
I thought about putting these models in a fourth library "ItemService" but since these models have different methods in each service, then InventoryService would be able to repair items, etc
But what if my "ItemService" only contained interfaces for these models (Just the state not the methods) which the other services then implement, so you could find ICar in the ItemService, package it into RepairService which then implements it and adds methods to repair a car.
I can't seem to find anywhere on the internet about having domain entities implement interfaces, so I'm not 100 percent sure
Cheers
In a previous project we ended up creating a separate library with all the common stuff used by different microservices. I think it is similar situation with what you describe here. The difference seems to be we used only plain beans for the models (not recommended when you do DDD, I know).
Taking this difference into account, what about using a Decorator?
This means you define the common properties/behavior in a common library, and them decorate them with the needed responsibilities in each service you use?
And I would not worry about having domain entities implement interfaces, if you think it is useful, just do it. I cannot think of any disadvantage.
I have a bit of a write-up around the same concept.
The point is that the various bounded contexts do something different on the same thing so even though there would be a unique identifier for a specific instance of, say, Car you would have different implementations of that class in the various bounded contexts. In many, if not most, cases you would probably have a class with a more relevant name in each particular BC.
Only a single one of the bounded contexts would, however, be the system of record for the entry.
I am at beginner stage of OOP. Got an academic project, need to make a UML Class Diagram of C# Code.
I am developing a project which will use database, I am confused about 1 thing. In UML we use inheritance like department and student, we create 2 classes and put department ID in student class.
Coming to my confusion, I will make some classes like department, student and teacher, and also a database with same tables. How can I use classes, because I know that on user request I can process data on database (on runtime), Like adding teacher or student to department, getting all students, etc. I am supposed to get all data from database when program loads? and save data in variables and put it in database when required? Simplifying my confusion, How to use classes when we use database to get data dynamically?
What you are talking about is a transition, which is not inheritance. At least not really. Once you have developed a class model you will think about persistence. The persistence can be designed in many ways (in most cases you will derive just one persistence scheme, though). Now what you do is to "copy" your classes from your design model to a new package for the persistence. Thereby <<trace>> from the persistence back to the design class. Now you almost independently optimize your persistence towards your desired schema. You will introduce primary and foreign keys, redundancy and things like that. Anyhow, your persistence model only remembers where it came from (via the <<trace>>) but it now has a living on his own.
Note that some UML tools offer automated transition from design models to various derivates.
I'm breaking my system into (at least) two bounded-contexts: study-design and survey-planning.
There's a concept named "subject" (potential subject for interviewing) in the study-design context. We also maintain associations between subjects and populations in that domain.
Now, in the survey-planning, we also need (some) information about the subject (for example: for planning a visit, or even for anticipated selection of questionnaire, in case the population the subject belongs to is known beforehand).
So, I need that "subject" in both contexts.
What approach should I pick? Having a shared kernel, as explained in Eric Evans DDD book? I don't mind (at least for now) having the two contexts sharing the same database.
Or... should I go pure microservice? Meaning: those two can't / shouldn't share database..., and in that case I might have to go the mirroring / duplicating route through event passing: https://www.infoq.com/news/2014/11/sharing-data-bounded-contexts
Any thoughts on which one is better, for the above situation?
Thanks!
The context for microservices is distributed systems. In any other situation it would probably be overkill. Shared kernel will eventually split. That is usually the case. You may start from it. Nothing wrong with that. However, it will not stay there.
I recommend that you choose a event-driven solution, but not necessarily to use microservices. You could build an event-driven monolith in order to spend much less time on synchronizing the two models. When the application grows too big then you split the monolith into microservices. You could use CQRS to split event more the models into write and read. If you use event-sourcing things get even more interesting.
In my experience, with shared kernel, the models become god objects, one-size-fits-all kind of objects.
In my opinion, you have three entities:
study
survey
person
It is pretty intuitive to see that each of these is its own aggregate root. So then we are talking about inter-root relationships. In my experience, those are meaningful entities on their own, and cleanest and most future proof by far is to treat those relationships as independent aggregate roots.
The relationship between a study and a person is perhaps called TestSubject, and the relationship between a person and a survey could be called Interviewee or something similar. In another context, the person could be an employee for a company, and then the Employee would be its own aggregate root. Information that only relates to the relationship and not to the person or the study say, should be limited to this relationship specific aggregate root. This could for instance be the start date at which the subject started to take part in the test, and the end date (when he dropped out, if he or she dropped out prematurely, etc.)
As for storage, all aggregate roots should define their own separate repositories as interfaces and know only those interfaces, but the implementation of those interfaces is free to choose to use the same database or different ones, or even different kinds, local or distributed, etc. So this holds for these 'relational' aggregate roots as well. But you should almost force yourself to use different databases and preferably even different technologies (e.g. one EntityFramework, the other MongoDb) when you start with this, to force yourself to make sure your interfaces are properly defined and independent of implementation.
And yes, big fan of CQRS as well here, and Event/Command Sourcing as well. There are many light-weight implementations possible that allow you to upscale, but are very easy to get into and afford you almost completely linear (=predictable) complexity.
You can start with microservices that share a monolithic data source, but only use partial domain entities and value objects
I am currently taking a course that gives an introduction to project planning. It is mostly about how to draw UML diagrams (blegh), but also has a few other topics.
One part in particular keeps bugging me. In the course they describe a method for going from a set of requirements to an initial class diagram, but everything about the method gives me this feeling that it is most definitely not the way to go. Let me first give an example before proceeding.
Let's consider a system that manages a greenhouse company. The company has multiple greenhouses, and every employee is assigned to his/her own greenhouse. A greenhouse has a location and a type of plant being grown in there. An employee has a name and phone number.
Here's what according to the course's method the class diagram would look like:
To me this looks like a database layout adapted for code. When I go about designing a program, I try to identify major abstractions. Like all the code that interacts with the database or the code that is responsible for the GUI are all different parts of the system. That would be what I consider to be an initial class diagram.
I simply can not imagine that this is a common way to start designing the architecture of a project. The classes look ugly, since if you take a slightly larger example the classes will be flooded with responsibilities. To me they look like data objects that have functionality to them they shouldn't have. It does not give me a clue on how to continue from here and get a general architecture going. Everything about it seems obsolete.
All I want to know if there's someone out there that can tell me if this is a common way to get a first class diagram on paper for reasons I am overlooking.
I would say it's reasonable to start with a logical model that's free of implementation constraints. That logical model is not necessarily concerned with physical implementation details (e.g. whether or not to use a database, what type of database, OS / UI choice, etc.) and thus represents just "real" business domain objects and processes. The similarity to a potential database implementation shouldn't be surprising for the simple example.
By understanding your business domain (through the logical model you've started to construct), you will be better placed to subsequently identify, for example, which architectural patterns are appropriate, what screens you need to build, and database elements to design. Possibly, there will be another part of the course that will aid you in this stage.
In practice, you will often know that you're intending to implement, say, a web-based application using MVC with a back-end database, and may look to model the implementation classes in parallel with your business items. For your course to use a method that emphasises the distinction between logical and physical stages doesn't sound unreasonable.
When I go about designing a program, I try to identify major
abstractions
Same principle in UML as well. You represent abstractions and their relationships and due to existing Visual Tools you can do a presentation of a system to stakeholders or even generate automatically stubs from your design.
In Domain Driven Design are collection properties of entities allowed to have partial values?
For example, should properties such as Customer.Orders, Post.Comments, Graph.Vertices always contain all orders, comments, vertices or it is allowed to have today's orders, recent comments, orphaned vertices?
Correspondingly, should Repositories provide methods like
GetCustomerWithOrdersBySpecification
GetPostWithCommentsBefore
etc.?
I don't think that DDD tells you to do or not to do this. It strongly depends on the system you are building and the specific problems you need to solve.
I not even heard about patterns about this.
From a subjective point of view I would say that entities should be complete by definitions (considering lazy loading), and could completely or partially be loaded to DTO's, to optimized the amount of data sent to clients. But I wouldn't mind to load partial entities from the database if it would solve some problem.
Remember that Domain-Driven Design also has a concept of services. For performing certain database queries, it's better to model the problem as a service than as a collection of child objects attached to a parent object.
A good example of this might be creating a report by accepting several user-entered parameters. It be easier to model this as:
CustomerReportService.GetOrdersByOrderDate(Customer theCustomer, Date cutoff);
Than like this:
myCustomer.OrdersCollection.SelectMatching(Date cutoff);
Or to put it another way, the DDD model you use for data entry does not have to be the same as the DDD model you use for reporting.
In highly scalable systems, it's common to separate these two concerns.