I'm starting with DDD philosophy and I'd like to implement an integration with a legacy system that we have here. In my researches in the internet, I found some articles and samples but I must to admit: is pretty hard to understand how to do that integration correctly.
Before to ask this question, I did a search here but the results were not useful for me, so I'd like to know if is possible to send or show me a implementation sample of an ACL.
Here I have this items:
The Legacy system
The legacy database (I need to access)
The new application that will be created using the DDD approach
The initial idea is to access that database throughout NHibernate, creating just some the needed mapping classes, the domain entities and implement the business rules. According to Eric Evans, this strategy is called [Bubble Context][1]. I think this strategy will solve my problem, but I need some sample to do that in a right way.
Can someone help me?
The ACL is a pattern and not just the piece of code. In what you described you didn't say do you have strong dependencies upon legacy system or you just want to have some independent piece of code built into current system? With this you could decide will be your ACL just a service to database or will it incorporate some wrapping upon legacy system logic?
The actual pieces that you'd put into the ALC are highly depend on your implementation.
There is a generic schema of what you're asking for:
You could find more info in Eric Evan's talk.
Related
In your online documentation regarding domain services ("https://aspnetboilerplate.com/Pages/Documents/Domain-Services") you have section called "How do we force to use of the Domain Service?"
In there you imply that there is a lot of external documentation around the concept of injecting a kind of "policy" service into the entity as a way to do this, but the artice is kind of vague on the implementation of that class, along with where it should be injected and how it is used. I have been scouring the Internet for examples of this kind of design to force the use of domain services, but haven't been able to find anything.
Just browsing that documentation leaves too many questions..
Additionally, I was hoping I could find a simple implementation of an Abp that provided an example of this, but could not find anything.
I'm very curious about this because I have found it to be a big problem with large projects in the past: developers writing their own code in the application service layer, not knowing that the capabilities were already provided in some domain driven "Manager" service.
Can you provide a quick small sample of this concept fully implemented? Using Abp would be great, but a generic example would be fine as well.
take care,
jasen
A few thoughts:
The Policy pattern in that code plays no role in forcing use of the domain service. It is only making task assignment more modular and more SRP compliant.
There's only so much defensive programming can do for you. Sure, making AssignedPersonId protected so that it cannot be directly assigned is a good thing, but a programmer could just as well change it back to public. Don't rely too much on technical code to prevent bad developer behavior - shared practices and team culture are much more efficient.
Questioning application sample or template code (as you do) is sound. Don't take that code as gospel truth - it was never meant to be exemplary in the first place. Try your own stuff and learn from your mistakes. Experience is not something that can be transmitted through such a document.
I'm trying to secure my play application but I have no idea where to start. In play tutorial I have not found any chapter about that topic. As far as I see security topic is changing between play versions. So what are You guys using to secure Yours applications.
I'm new in Play so please forgive me if I'm asking obvious questions.
Edit:
Ok, maby question was't clear enough(I'm really sorry about that). When talking about security I mean that I need something to deal with users credentials and tool which allows me to restrict access to some pages and eventually to some rest actions in my application.
Edit2:
I'll try deadbolt2 now and we'll see how does it works. But I still encurage You guys to share Your knowledge about Play security with others:)
The documentation seems to still be a bit lacklustre on this topic, but essentially, authentication/authorisation functionality is usually performed using Action composition, which is the basis of reusable controller code in Play. There an example here (also linked from the docs that should help give you the general idea.)
Action composition in Play 2.2.x is done using ActionBuilders. These take a block which accepts a request and returns a Future[SimpleResult]. This allows the action builder to either execute the given block, or return a different Future[SimpleResult] (say, an Unauthorized in the case that a user's credentials did not check out.)
In our app we use the Play2-auth module for handling authentication with session cookies. This has (just) been updated to work with Play 2.2.x but uses a slightly different mechanism for action composition (stackable controllers.) You might be best off working out how the precise functionality you need can be accomplished just using the native framework tools before adding a dependency to it.
I agree with the other answers but just add that I use securesocial to integrate with other auth providers (google, FB, etc...), so I don't have to do auth myself. It's quite easy to get up and running.
https://github.com/jaliss/securesocial
Access control, security, etc. is a very wide topic, because it means very different things depending on context. This may be one of the reasons why Play has little documentation for it, which puzzled me at the beginning as well.
Play2 has some security helpers, namely it's the Authenticated method, for some insights on how to use it, check the comments in the source code. Its a simple method that you could implement yourself, and most do. It, essentially, just proposes a structure for where to place your methods that would check if request is authenticated and what to do if it's not.
Play2 also has some cryptography logic, which is used for signing cookies.
That's about it, you don't have any more pre-built security structures, but that's a good thing, because you don't want the framework making decisions like that for you, if it doesn't know in what context it will be used.
What is essential is to go and research how attacks relevant to your application are carried out, best practices and so on. I recommend going to OWASP, particularly the OWASP Cheat Sheets. If the list of Cheat Sheets seems intimidating start with the OWASP Top Ten Cheat Sheet. Don't mind the large volume of information, it's very useful knowledge.
Can somebody please explain (in succinct terms) what exactly is domain driven design? I see the term quite a lot but really don't understand what it is or what it looks like. How does it differ from non-domain driven design?
Also, can somebody explain what a Domain Object is? How does domain differ from normal objects?
EDIT:
As this seem to be a top result on Google and my answer below is not, please refer to this much better answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1222488/1240557
OLD ANSWER (not so complete :))
In order to create good software, you have to know what that software
is all about. You cannot create a banking software system unless you
have a good understanding of what banking is all about, one must
understand the domain of banking.
From: Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans.
This book does a pretty good job of describing DDD.
Register to download a summary of the book.
Domain Driven Design is a methodology and process prescription for the development of complex systems whose focus is mapping activities, tasks, events, and data within a problem domain into the technology artifacts of a solution domain.
The emphasis of Domain Driven Design is to understand the problem domain in order to create an abstract model of the problem domain which can then be implemented in a particular set of technologies. Domain Driven Design as a methodology provides guidelines for how this model development and technology development can result in a system that meets the needs of the people using it while also being robust in the face of change in the problem domain.
The process side of Domain Driven Design involves the collaboration between domain experts, people who know the problem domain, and the design/architecture experts, people who know the solution domain. The idea is to have a shared model with shared language so that as people from these two different domains with their two different perspectives discuss the solution they are actually discussing a shared knowledge base with shared concepts.
The lack of a shared problem domain understanding between the people who need a particular system and the people who are designing and implementing the system seems to be a core impediment to successful projects. Domain Driven Design is a methodology to address this impediment.
It is more than having an object model. The focus is really about the shared communication and improving collaboration so that the actual needs within the problem domain can be discovered and an appropriate solution created to meet those needs.
Domain-Driven Design: The Good and The Challenging provides a brief overview with this comment:
DDD helps discover the top-level architecture and inform about the
mechanics and dynamics of the domain that the software needs to
replicate. Concretely, it means that a well done DDD analysis
minimizes misunderstandings between domain experts and software
architects, and it reduces the subsequent number of expensive requests
for change. By splitting the domain complexity in smaller contexts,
DDD avoids forcing project architects to design a bloated object
model, which is where a lot of time is lost in working out
implementation details — in part because the number of entities to
deal with often grows beyond the size of conference-room white boards.
Also see this article Domain Driven Design for Services Architecture which provides a short example. The article provides the following thumbnail description of Domain Driven Design.
Domain Driven Design advocates modeling based on the reality of
business as relevant to our use cases. As it is now getting older and
hype level decreasing, many of us forget that the DDD approach really
helps in understanding the problem at hand and design software towards
the common understanding of the solution. When building applications,
DDD talks about problems as domains and subdomains. It describes
independent steps/areas of problems as bounded contexts, emphasizes a
common language to talk about these problems, and adds many technical
concepts, like entities, value objects and aggregate root rules to
support the implementation.
Martin Fowler has written a number of articles in which Domain Driven Design as a methodology is mentioned. For instance this article, BoundedContext, provides an overview of the bounded context concept from Domain Driven Development.
In those younger days we were advised to build a unified model of the
entire business, but DDD recognizes that we've learned that "total
unification of the domain model for a large system will not be
feasible or cost-effective" 1. So instead DDD divides up a large
system into Bounded Contexts, each of which can have a unified model -
essentially a way of structuring MultipleCanonicalModels.
You CAN ONLY understand Domain driven design by first comprehending what the following are:
What is a domain?
The field for which a system is built. Airport management, insurance sales, coffee shops, orbital flight, you name it.
It's not unusual for an application to span several different domains. For example, an online retail system might be working in the domains of shipping (picking appropriate ways to deliver, depending on items and destination), pricing (including promotions and user-specific pricing by, say, location), and recommendations (calculating related products by purchase history).
What is a model?
"A useful approximation to the problem at hand." -- Gerry Sussman
An Employee class is not a real employee. It models a real employee. We know that the model does not capture everything about real employees, and that's not the point of it. It's only meant to capture what we are interested in for the current context.
Different domains may be interested in different ways to model the same thing. For example, the salary department and the human resources department may model employees in different ways.
What is a domain model?
A model for a domain.
What is Domain-Driven Design (DDD)?
It is a development approach that deeply values the domain model and connects it to the implementation. DDD was coined and initially developed by Eric Evans.
Culled from here
Here is another good article that you may check out on Domain Driven Design. if your application is anything serious than college assignment. The basic premise is structure everything around your entities and have a strong domain model. Differentiate between services that provide infrastructure related things (like sending email, persisting data) and services that actually do things that are your core business requirments.
Hope that helps.
As in TDD & BDD you/ team focus the most on test and behavior of the system than code implementation.
Similar way when system analyst, product owner, development team and ofcourse the code - entities/ classes, variables, functions, user interfaces processes communicate using the same language, its called Domain Driven Design
DDD is a thought process. When modeling a design of software you need to keep business domain/process in the center of attention rather than data structures, data flows, technology, internal and external dependencies.
There are many approaches to model systerm using DDD
event sourcing (using events as a single source of truth)
relational databases
graph databases
using functional languages
Domain object:
In very naive words, an object which
has name based on business process/flow
has complete control on its internal state i.e exposes methods to manipulate state.
always fulfill all business invariants/business rules in context of its use.
follows single responsibility principle
DDD(domain driven design) is a useful concept for analyse of requirements of a project and handling the complexity of these requirements.Before that people were analysing these requirements with considering the relationships between classes and tables and in fact their design were based on database tables relationships it is not old but it has some problems:
In big projects with complex requirements it is not useful although this is a great way of design for small projects.
when you are dealing with none technical persons that they don,t have technical concept, this conflict may cause some huge problems in our project.
So DDD handle the first problem with considering the main project as a Domain and splitting each part of this project to small pieces which we are famous to Bounded Context and each of them do not have any influence on other pieces.
And the second problem has been solved with a ubiquitous language which is a common language between technical team members and Product owners which are not technical but have enough knowledge about their requirements
Generally the simple definition for Domain is the main project that makes money for the owners and other teams.
I do not want to repeat others' answers, so, in short I explain some common misunderstanding
Practical resource: PATTERNS, PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICES OF DOMAIN-DRIVEN DESIGN by Scott Millett
It is a methodology for complicated business systems. It takes all the technical matters out when communicating with business experts
It provides an extensive understanding of (simplified and distilled model of) business across the whole dev team.
it keeps business model in sync with code model by using ubiquitous language (the language understood by the whole dev team, business experts, business analysts, ...), which is used for communication within the dev team or dev with other teams
It has nothing to do with Project Management. Although it can be perfectly used in project management methods like Agile.
You should avoid using it all across your project
DDD stresses the need to focus the most effort on the core subdomain. The core subdomain is the
area of your product that will be the difference between it being a success and it being a failure. It’s
the product’s unique selling point, the reason it is being built rather than bought.
Basically, it is because it takes too much time and effort. So, it is suggested to break down the whole domain into subdomain and just apply it in those with high business value. (ex not in generic subdomain like email, ...)
It is not object oriented programming. It is mostly problem solving approach and (sometimes) you do not need to use OO patterns (such as Gang of Four) in your domain models. Simply because it can not be understood by Business Experts (they do not know much about Factory, Decorator, ...). There are even some patterns in DDD (such as The Transaction Script, Table Module) which are not 100% in line with OO concepts.
I believe the following pdf will give you the bigger picture. Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans
NOTE: Think of a project you can work on, apply the little things you understood and see best practices. It will help you to grow your ability to the micro service architecture design approach too.
Get an organization wide understanding of the problem domain by
developing a ubiquitous language (a common mental model) per sub-problem-domain.
Use that language as close as possible in solution domains (code).
Only then choose technologies.
Don't be technology driven but problem domain or business driven.
Having recently discovered design patterns, and having acquired the excellent Head First Design Patterns book (can really recommend it!), I am now wondering about design patterns for security and controlling access to records in data stores.
My use case is a bespoke CRM style application, with contacts, businesses, and users who have different levels of access, including being limited to read only access, or even a subset of records. I will only be doing distinct entity level access control, not field level.
Can anyone recommend any security orientated design patterns that would fit the above?
If it makes a difference, I am using ASP.Net MVC, Entity Framework 4 and SQL Server 2008.
Security is what we call Cross-cutting concern and it's never easy deal with.
If you need to deal with the security from ASP.NET MVC level you would consider to look at MVC tutorial :
http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/
If you want to know more about the security from the domain model level, an interesting question was already asked :
DDD User Security Policies
Hope this helps
There does exists a group of patterns realted to security, though most of them fucuses on securing integrated systems. I have found no book that is as well written and usable as GOF/Head-first, though I did enjoy the one online at www.securitypatterns.org.
Security is as much about architecture (sever setup, network topology...) as its about programing, so I would recommend that you start out with a general security book. Also pick up a book specifically on .NET/Windows security, since robust security programming is very technology specific (I, as UNIX/Java programmer, will have a completly different toolbox than
a .NET programmer and can unfortunatly not help you with a book on this last subject).
A good place to start on security (although not necessarily a "security design patterns" book) is Ross Anderson's Security Engineering.
I repeatedly find that establishing user requirements is one of the hardest parts of my job. This is for several reasons, for example, lack of shared technical vocabulary, incomplete understanding of domain on my part, inability of user to 'imagine' completed UI / product, etc etc.
Since this appears to be an ongoing challenge for me, has anyone here had a 'eureka' moment that has really helped them with this part of developing? For example, I have heard of the book 'Domain Driven Design', but not read it yet. Has anyone found a book, online resource of piece of advice that has really turned things around for them?
I won't aspire for eureka experience, however, if you are interested in DDD, which is about establishing common language for you and the users (among other things), than if you don't have access to the book, look for the Domain-Driven Design Quickly on DZone.
Generally speaking, any time user cannot imagine the thing and therefore state proper requirements, go for the prototyping (if you can). Recently I was pleased by really super simple tool which is a Firefox extension called Pencil, which enables easy and quite fast prototyping even for non-programmers. It is far from perfect, but it enables you to create own components and it is extensible.
Are you creating the user requirements on your own or are you actually interacting with the user to generate the requirements?
If you are creating a piece of software without a customer then starting with a simple high-level mock-up of what I want to create is where I will usually start and will formulate my User Requirements how I think a user would use the software.
If you have a customer I would suggest breaking the software into smaller modules (manageable chunks) and sitting down with the user to talk to them, step-by-step, how they want the module to function.