I am getting my feet wet with DDD (in .Net) for the first time, as I am re-architecting some core components of a legacy enterprise application.
Something I want to clear up is, how do we implement persistence in a proper DDD architecture?
I realize that the domains themselves are persistence ignorant, and should be designed using the "ubiquitous language" and certainly not forced into the constraints of the DAC of the month or even the physical database.
Am I correct that the Repository Interfaces live within the Domain assembly, but the Respository Implementations exist within the persistence layer? The persistence layer contains a reference to the Domain layer, never vice versa?
Where are my actual repository methods (CRUD) being called from?
Am I correct that the Repository Interfaces live within the Domain
assembly, but the Repository Implementations exist within the
persistence layer? The persistence layer contains a reference to the
Domain layer, never vice versa?
Yes, this is a very good approach.
Where are my actual repository methods (CRUD) being called from?
It might be a good idea to not think in CRUD terms because it is too data-centric and may lead you into Generic Repository Trap. Repository helps to manage middle and the end of life for domain objects. Factories are often responsible for beginning. Keep in mind that when the object is restored from the database it is in its midlife stage from DDD perspective. This is how the code can look like:
// beginning
Customer preferredCustomer = CustomerFactory.CreatePreferred();
customersRepository.Add(preferredCustomer);
// middle life
IList<Customer> valuedCustomers = customersRepository.FindPrefered();
// end life
customersRepository.Archive(customer);
You can call this code directly from you application. It maybe worth downloading and looking at Evan's DDD Sample. Unit of Work pattern is usually employed to deal with transactions and abstracting your ORM of choice.
Check out what Steve Bohlen has to say on the subject. The code for the presentation can be found here.
I was at the presentation and found the information on how to model repositories good.
Am I correct that the Repository Interfaces live within the Domain
assembly, but the Repository Implementations exist within the
persistence layer? The persistence layer contains a reference to the
Domain layer, never vice versa?
I disagree here, let's say a system is comprised of the following layers:
Presentation Layer (win forms, web forms, asp.net MVC, WPF, php, qt, java, , ios, android, etc.)
Business Layer (sometimes called managers or services, logic goes here)
Resource Access Layer (manually or ORM)
Resource/Storage (RDBMS, NoSQL, etc.)
The assumption here is that the higher you are the more volatile the layer is (highest being presentation and lowest being resource/storage). It is because of this that you don't want the resource access layer referencing the business layer, it is the other way around! The business layer references the resource access layer, you call DOWN not UP!
You put the interfaces/contracts in their own assembly instead, they have no purpose in the business layer at all.
Related
While studying DDD I'm wondering why the Domain model need to define interfaces for the Infrastructure layer.
From my reads I got that a high level (domain model, application service, domain service) defines interfaces that need to be implemented by a lower layer (infrastructure). Simple.
From this idea I think it makes sense that an application level (in a high level) defines interfaces for a lower one (infrastructure) because the application level will use infrastructure components (A repository is a usual client of the applicaiton layer) but doesn't want to be tied to any special implementation.
However, this is confusing when I see in some books a domain level defining infrastructure interfaces because a domain model will not use ever a repository because we want our domain model "pure".
Am I missing something?
While studying DDD I'm wondering why the Domain model need to define interfaces for the Infrastructure layer.
It doesn't really -- that's part of the point.
The domain model defines the interfaces / contracts that it needs to do work, with the promise of happily working with any implementation that conforms to the contract.
So you can choose to implement the interface in your application component, or in the infrastructure component, or where ever makes sense.
Note the shift in language from "layer" to "component". Layers may be too simplistic to work -- see Udi Dahan 2007.
I came across the same question myself. From my understanding, the reason behind this is that you want the application to only consume objects/interfaces defined in the Domain Model. It also helps to keep one repository per aggregate since they sit next to each other in the same layer.
The fact that the Application layer has a reference to the Infrastructure layer is only for the purpose of dependency injection. Your Application layer services should call these interfaces exposed in the Domain layer, get Domain Objects (POCOs), do things and possibly call interfaces again; for example to commit a transaction. This is why for example the Unit of Work pattern exposes its action through a Domain Layer interface.
I’m designing a shipping application and trying to use Clean Architecture and DDD. Deep in the core of the domain layer we have many configurable business rules. For example, there are business rules for determining the optimal carrier of a shipment, determining shipping mode, determining the payment type, etc. Each business rule selects data from the database so I plan on using a BizRule Repository. The problem is that according to my understanding of DDD principles, Domain Entities (e.g. Shipment) should not call repositories(e.g. BizRuleRepository). The Use Case layer should be the one that calls repositories. If I take this approach then I will have to move many complex business rules to the Use Case layer and I'm not sure if that is the best approach. In this case, does it make sense to make an exception and have the domain entity call a repository? Thank you in advance.
Should a Domain Entity call a repository?
Generally speaking, no; it doesn't make sense for an entity (which is a domain concern) to be communicating directly with a repository (which is plumbing).
Evans, when organizing his book, assigned these ideas to different chapters
A Model Expressed in Software -- describes Entities
The Life Cycle of a Domain Object -- describes Repositories
It's a problem of language; Repositories normally have collection or persistence semantics, which are not (typically) part of the ubiquitous language of the domain.
That said, there is a loop hole; domain services can describe data retrieval using the ubiquitous language, and delegate that work to application or infrastructure services.
So (assuming for the moment that the business rules are a domain concept), you would have a domain entity that knows which business rule it needs, and a domain service that knows how to retrieve a business rule, and then the entity that knows how to use it.
If business rules are not a domain concept, then some of the work shifts from the entity into the domain service, but the core of the pattern remains the same -- the entity passes arguments to the service, the service returns a domain value the entity understands, the entity decides how to apply that value in its current processing.
We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection
It's a bit of a shell game; under the covers, we're still using the plumbing; but the domain model only sees the porcelain.
That extra layer of indirection can be really handy when you want to unit test the domain logic without dragging in the entire world of plumbing dependencies: you replace the domain service with a test double.
If it is just for readings it should be ok, maybe it can be cleaner having an interface/service (also with just 1 method) that express the desired query to your store, decoupling your entity from the repository.
In this way you can easily mock the query during tests, and in the future the lookup method can be easily improved in its own class (or you can also pass different strategies/implementation for the lookup).
Problem arises when you use repositories to write inside entities.
In my application a few layers.
In this topic will focus on Domain and Infrastructure layers.
I have repository interface ClientRepositoryInterface in Domain layer.
And I have implementation of this interface ClientRepositoryImpl in Infrastructure layer.
But to reconstitute the object in the middle of the cycle of its existence I need factory(ReconstitutionClientFactory).
Call the factory will be in the repository.
The book by Eric Evans is described as a normal practice.
But where this factory(ReconstitutionClientFactory) should be located? In Domain or in Infrastructure layer?
I think in Domain...
BUT! But then the lower layer will directly call a higher layer!
This is wrong, but how to do right?
Factory & Repository Concepts
To answer your question, I think it's important to focus on responsibilities of the concepts defined by DDD.
In the blue book, there is a section that deals with the problem that you describe:
A FACTORY handles the beginning of an object’s life; a REPOSITORY helps manage the middle and the end.
and specifically for your question:
Because the REPOSITORY is, in this case, creating objects based on data, many people consider the REPOSITORY to be a FACTORY—indeed it is, from a technical point of view.
(both quotes from Evans, chapter 6, section "The relationship with factories")
To keep the concepts pure, it is important that the interface of your factories and repositories are clean. So don't allow creating new business objects through the repository interface, and don't allow querying existing ones through the factory interface.
Keeping the interfaces clean does however not mean that you should not use a factory from the repository implementation, because, after all, the repository creates an instance at some point, and if that instance creation is complex, a factory is the appropriate solution.
To quote Evans again:
Whenever there is exposed complexity in reconstituting an object from another medium, the FACTORY is a good option.
Note, however, that the repository will most likely call a different method on the factory than the clients that really want to create a new domain object (as opposed to reconstitution).
There is even an example in Evans' book that illustrates approach:
Answer to your question
Now that it is clear that this is allowed, lets focus on your question of where to put the factory:
The DDD factory interface belongs in the domain, because your domain logic uses this to create domain objects.
The DDD reconstitution factory interface does not belong in the domain, since this is only relevant for your repository. It does not exist in the real world of your domain.
Now if you're using an architecture that prohibits dependencies from the domain to the infrastructure (which you probably should when applying DDD), it's clear that the factory implementation belongs in the infrastructure. Note that it does not matter whether you call your layers layers, rings, realms or whatever, the dependencies are the important part.
First of all, the layers approach is kinda obsolete. When talking layers think 'context', who's on top of who isn't important.
The repository is in charge of restoring an object. A factory just creates a new object. Note the different semantics. The repository knows how saving/restoring to/from persistence is done and that depends on the storage and the method of access.
So, everything is done inside the repository i.e in the Infrastructure. If you serialize things, then you need just to deserialize back (this is how a document db does things anyway). If you're using an ORM or store things in tables then you'll do all the query required to get the data and repopulate the object. An ORM is the easiest way since it can use reflection to populate private properties. In this case the ORM itself is the factory.
One more thing, restoring, while technically can be done by a domain factory, it isn't the factory's purpose to do that because it breaks the layer boundaries. We want to keep everything persistence related in the Infrastructure.
Which layer should the repository classes go in? Domain or Infrastructure?
The repository interfaces are part of the domain. The actual implementation of the interfaces should be part of the infrastructure.
Repository implementation classes, together with separate interfaces (if they exist) should go into the domain layer.
The reason is given by the fundamental rule to be followed in a layered architecture: a lower layer must not depend on a higher layer.
If we accept this rule (otherwise it's not a layered architecture), then putting repository implementations into the infrastructure layer would make it dependant on the domain layer, therefore violating the fundamental rule of layering.
For example, when we create a new domain entity, we put it in the domain layer; and since a repository (both its interface and its implementation) must inevitably depend on the domain entity, it means the repository must also go into the domain layer. Otherwise, we would be changing the infrastructure layer whenever a domain entity was added/removed/modified in the domain layer.
Other concerns, such as keeping the domain layer "clean" and independent of persistence details, can and should be achieved by using the appropriate infrastructure services from the implementations inside the domain layer. For example, in Java we can use JPA to implement repositories with very little code, and no SQL/JDBC or database-specific code (whether it's really a good idea to implement repositories with JPA is another discussion; in any case, JPA entities will make use of JPA annotations anyway).
References: Wikipedia,
MSDN
Repository classes implementations should be situated in the Infrastructural Layer. Repository interfaces should be in the Service Layer.
Domain Layer should know nothing about the repositories. Strategic patterns of DDD state that Domain Layer should always be in sync with conceptual model. That means that Domain Layer should translate well known domain processes to code and vice versa. And domain process is what your domain experts should know well. And domain experts know nothing about repositories.
Another way to think about it. Let us suppose we put repositories or the interfaces of repositories into a Domain Layer. I.e. now we have the repository concept in Domain Layer code. Also, the Domain Layer should be in sync with the conceptual model of domain. So, let us ask ourselves what is the representation of repository in the conceptual model. The correct answer is that there is no repository in the conceptual model. Hence, repository can not be in Domain Layer.
All said, I still come across projects which have repositories in the Domain Layer and engineers on the projects still call it a DDD practice. I assume the problem here is that people do not pay a lot of attention to strategic patterns which lie at the heart of DDD, but just play around with the tactical patterns which may simplify coding efforts a bit.
I guess that depends how You are going to rely on them.
Question is - are You going to allow Yourself to use repositories from inside of domain?
If so - then You are forced to put them in.
I myself like to put them outside of domain. So - typical life cycle of something looks like this =>
UI => Controller => retrieve aggregate root from repo => call logic through aggregate root => if new aggregate root created, add it to repo.
Sometimes controller calls application service that does some additional stuff besides just retrieving root and calling function on it. But idea is same - domain knows nothing about persistence.
While (as I see it) there's nothing wrong with putting repos in domain (or at least abstractions of them), it makes Your domain more aware of persistence. Sometimes that can solve problems, but generally - that will definitely make Your domain more complex.
Use what seems more natural for You and be ready to switch Your ways any time.
After reading Eric Evans' Domain driven Design I have a few questions. I searched but no where i could able to find satisfying answers. Please let me know if anyone of you have clear understanding below questions.
My concerns are
Repository is for getting already existing aggregates from DB,Web service .
If yes, Can Repository also have transaction calls on this entity (i.e Transfer amount,send account details ...etc)
Can Entity have Methods which have business logic in which it calls infrastructure Layer services for sending emails .. logs etc (Entity methods calling IS services direclty).
Repository implementation and Factory classes will reside in Infrastrucure Layer. is that correct statement ?
Can UI layer (controller) call Repositry methods directly ? or should we call these from Application layer ?
There are still lot many confusion in my mind ... please guide me ...
Books i am using Eric Evan's domain driven desing ......
.NET Domain-Driven Design with C#
There is a lot of debate about whether Repositories should be read-only or allow transactions. DDD doesn't dictate any of these views. You can do both. Proponents of read-only Repositories prefer Unit of Work for all CUD operations.
Most people (self included) consider it good practice that Entities are Persistent-Ignorant. Extending that principle a bit would indicate that they should be self-contained and free of all infrastructure layer services - even in abstract form. So I would say that calls to infrastructure services belong in Service classes that operate on Entities.
It sounds correct that Repository implementations and Factories (if any) should reside in the infrastructure layer. Their interfaces, however, must reside in the Domain Layer so that the domain services can interact with them without having dependencies on the infrastructure layer.
DDD doesn't really dictate whether you can skip layers or not. Late in the book, Evans talks a bit about layering and calls it Relaxed Layering when you allow this, so I guess he just sees it as one option among several. Personally I'd prefer to prevent layer skipping, because it makes it easier to inject some behavior at a future time if calls already go through the correct layers.
Personally, in my latest DDD-project, I use a Unit Of Work that holds an NHibernate session. The UoW is ctor injected in the repositories, giving them the single responsible of Add, Remove and Find.
Evans has stated that one piece of the puzzle that's missing in the DDD book is «Domain Events». Using something like Udi Dahan's DomainEvents will give you a totally decoupled architecture (the domain object simply raises an event). Personally, I use a modified version of Domain Events and StructureMap for the wiring. It works great for my needs.
I recommend, based on other recommendations, that the Repository interfaces be a part of the model, and their implementations be a part of the infrastructure.
Yes! I've personally worked on three DDD web projects where services and repositories were injected to the presenters/controllers (ASP.NET/ASP.NET MVC) and it made a lot of sense in our context.
The repository should only be for locating and saving entities, there should not be any business logic in that layer. For example:
repository.TransferAmount(amount, toAccount); // this is bad
Entities can do things like send emails as long as they depend on abstractions defined in your domain. The implementation should be in your infrastructure layer.
Yes, you put your repository implementation in your infrastructure layer.
Can UI layer (controller) call Repositry methods directly ? or should we call these from Application layer ?
Yes, I try to follow this pattern for the most part:
[UnitOfWork]
public ActionResult MyControllerAction(int id)
{
var entity = repository.FindById(id);
entity.DoSomeBusinessLogic();
repository.Update(entity);
}