I'm working on creating an Azure application which would use around ten ttorage tables. I would like to adopt best practices but I am not sure if I should have just one single file with all the tables in the dataservicecontext.cs file or if I should have a different file for each table. Looks to me like both ways achieve the same thing. Anyone else have an opinion on what would be the best practice?
public class ContactDataServiceContext
: TableServiceContext
{
public ContactDataServiceContext(string baseAddress,
StorageCredentials credentials)
: base(baseAddress, credentials)
{
}
public const string ContactTableName = "ContactTable";
public IQueryable<ContactDataModel> ContactTable
{
get
{
return this.CreateQuery<ContactDataModel>(ContactTableName);
}
}
}
namespace NerdDinner.Models
{
public class NerdDinnerDataContext : TableStorageDataServiceContext
{
/// <summary>
/// Define an entry-point into our table. Dinners represents an "EntitySet".
/// </summary>
public DataServiceQuery<Dinner> Dinners
{
get
{
//Create the root of a LINQ query of type Dinner against the table Dinners
return this.CreateQuery<Dinner>("Dinners");
}
}
public DataServiceQuery<RSVP> RSVPs
{
get
{
//Create the root of a LINQ query of type RSVP against the table RSVPs
return this.CreateQuery<RSVP>("RSVPs");
}
}
}
}
To me this just comes down to code maintainability. If you favor many classes so that one class size does not grow too big, then splitting these out into separate classes might be the way to go.
There typically isn't much implementation to a table, so I think it's a bit messy to have a file per table and partial classes. You would want to group them logically so I'd recommend creating a file per Context with it's associated tables.
Related
I am having problem retrieving records from azure storage table when the record is inserted from the portal itself. The table structure is fairly simple:
package com.nielsen.batchJobsManager.storage.entities;
import com.microsoft.azure.storage.table.TableServiceEntity;
public class BatchJobConfigEntity extends TableServiceEntity {
public BatchJobConfigEntity(String jobPrefix, String configName) {
this.partitionKey = jobPrefix;
this.rowKey = configName;
}
public BatchJobConfigEntity() {
}
public String configValue;
public void setConfigValue(String configValue) {
this.configValue = configValue;
}
public String getConfigValue() {
return this.configValue;
}
}
I am just trying to fetch the configValue stored in the table but I am having no luck, as you can see from the screen shot. However I have noticed that if I add the record using java application "TableOperation.insertOrMerge" then it works but I just do not understand why it should matter!
Ok found the solution just trying random stuff! I hope this will come handy for folks who are facing the same issue. So turns out the propertyName must follow camel case but with first character capitalized. So :
had to be changed to :
Only after inserting like that I was able to get the configValue from table entity object correctly.
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
We have an application which stores its data in two different databases. At some point in the future we may only be storing our data in one database, so we want it to be as painful as possible to make this kind of change. For this reason, we wrap our DbContexts in a single MyDataContext which gets injected into our UnitOfWork and Repository classes.
class MyDataContext : IDataContext {
internal Database1Context Database1;
internal Database2Context Database2;
}
class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork {
MyDataContext myDataContext;
public UnitOfWork(MyDataContext myDataContext) {
this.myDataContext = myDataContext;
}
public Save() {
//todo: add transaction/commit/rollback logic
this.myDataContext.Database1.SaveChanges();
this.myDataContext.Database2.SaveChanges();
}
}
class Database1Context : DbContext {
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
}
class Database2Context : DbContext {
public DbSet<Customers> CustomerProfile { get; set; }
}
class CustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository {
MyDataContext myDataContext;
public CustomerRepository(MyDataContext myDataContext) {
this.myDataContext = myDataContext;
}
public GetCustomerById(int id) {
return this.myDataContext.Database1.Customers.Single(...);
}
}
My first question is, am I doing it right? I've been doing a lot of reading, but admittedly DDD is a little bit overwhelming at this point.
My second question is which layer of the application do the IUnitOfWork and IDataContext interfaces reside in? I know that the interfaces for repositories live in the Core/Domain layer/assembly of the application, but not sure about these two. Should these two even have interfaces?
My first question is, am I doing it right?
You can do that, but first reconsider why you're storing data in different places in the first place. Are distinct aggregates at play? Furthermore, if you wish to commit changes to two different databases within a transaction, you will need to use 2-phase commit which is best to avoid. If you have different aggregates, perhaps you can save them separately?
My second question is which layer of the application do the
IUnitOfWork and IDataContext interfaces reside in?
These can be placed in the application layer.
My current implementation for service and business layer is straight forward as below.
public class MyEntity { }
// Business layer
public interface IBusiness { IList<MyEntity> GetEntities(); }
public class MyBusinessOne : IBusiness
{
public IList<MyEntity> GetEntities()
{
return new List<MyEntity>();
}
}
//factory
public static class Factory
{
public static T Create<T>() where T : class
{
return new MyBusinessOne() as T; // returns instance based on T
}
}
//Service layer
public class MyService
{
public IList<MyEntity> GetEntities()
{
return Factory.Create<IBusiness>().GetEntities();
}
}
We needed some changes in current implementation. Reason being data grew over the time and service & client cannot handle the volume of data. we needed to implement pagination to the current service. We also expect some more features (like return fault when data is more that threshold, apply filters etc), so the design needs to be updated.
Following is my new proposal.
public interface IBusiness
{
IList<MyEntity> GetEntities();
}
public interface IBehavior
{
IEnumerable<T> Apply<T>(IEnumerable<T> data);
}
public abstract class MyBusiness
{
protected List<IBehavior> Behaviors = new List<IBehavior>();
public void AddBehavior(IBehavior behavior)
{
Behaviors.Add(behavior);
}
}
public class PaginationBehavior : IBehavior
{
public int PageSize = 10;
public int PageNumber = 2;
public IEnumerable<T> Apply<T>(IEnumerable<T> data)
{
//apply behavior here
return data
.Skip(PageNumber * PageSize)
.Take(PageSize);
}
}
public class MyEntity { }
public class MyBusinessOne : MyBusiness, IBusiness
{
public IList<MyEntity> GetEntities()
{
IEnumerable<MyEntity> result = new List<MyEntity>();
this.Behaviors.ForEach(rs =>
{
result = rs.Apply<MyEntity>(result);
});
return result.ToList();
}
}
public static class Factory
{
public static T Create<T>(List<IBehavior> behaviors) where T : class
{
// returns instance based on T
var instance = new MyBusinessOne();
behaviors.ForEach(rs => instance.AddBehavior(rs));
return instance as T;
}
}
public class MyService
{
public IList<MyEntity> GetEntities(int currentPage)
{
List<IBehavior> behaviors = new List<IBehavior>() {
new PaginationBehavior() { PageNumber = currentPage, }
};
return Factory.Create<IBusiness>(behaviors).GetEntities();
}
}
Experts please suggest me if my implementation is correct or I am over killing it. If it correct what design pattern it is - Decorator or Visitor.
Also my service returns JSON string. How can I use this behavior collections to serialize only selected properties rather than entire entity. List of properties comes from user as request. (Kind of column picker)
Looks like I don't have enough points to comment on your question. So, I am gonna make some assumption as I am not a C# expert.
Assumption 1: Looks like you are getting the data first and then applying the pagination using behavior object. If so, this is a wrong approach. Lets say there are 500 records and you are showing 50 records per fetch. Instead of simply fetching 50 records from DB, you are fetching 500 records for 10 times and on top of it you are adding a costly filter. DB is better equipped to do this job that C# or Java.
I would not consider pagination as a behavior with respect to the service. Its the behavior of the presentation layer. Your service should only worry about 'Data Granularity'. Looks like one of your customer wants all the data in one go and others might want a subset of that data.
Option 1: In DAO layer, have two methods: one for pagination and other for regular fetch. Based on the incoming params decide which method to call.
Option 2: Create two methods at service level. One for a small subset of data and the other for the whole set of data. Since you said JSON, this should be Restful service. Then based on the incoming URL, properly call the correct method. If you use Jersey, this should be easy.
In a service, new behaviors can be added by simply exposing new methods or adding new params to existing methods/functionalities (just make sure those changes are backward compatible). We really don't need Decorator or Visitor pattern. The only concern is no existing user should be affected.
I have an aggregate that includes the entities A, AbstractElement, X, Y and Z. The root entity is A that also has a list of AbstractElement. Entities X,Y and Z inherit from AbstractElement. I need the possibility to add instances of X, Y and Z to an instance of A. One approach is to use one method for each type, i.e. addX, addY and addZ. These methods would take as arguments the values required to create instances of X, Y and Z. But, each time I add a new type that inherits from AbstractElement, I need to modify the entity A, so I think it's not the best solution.
Another approach is to use an abstract add method addAbstractElement for adding AbstractElement instances. But, in this case, the method would take as argument an instance of AbstractElement. Because this method would be called by entities located outside of the aggregate, following DDD rules/recommandations, are these external entities authorized to create instances of AbstractElement? I read in the Eric Evans book that external entities are not authorized to hold references of entities of an aggregate other than the root?
What is the best practice for this kind of problem?
Thanks
From Evan's book, page 139:
"if you needed to add elements inside a preexisting AGGREGATE, you might create a FACTORY METHOD on the root of the AGGREGATE"
Meaning, you should create a factory method on the root (A) which will get the AbstractElement's details. This method will create the AbstractElement (X/Y/Z) according to some decision parameter and will add it to its internal collection of AbstractElements. In the end this method return the id of the new element.
Best Regards,
Itzik Saban
A few comments. As the previous answerer said, it's a good practice to use a factory method. If you can avoid it, never create objects out of the blue. Usually, it's a pretty big smell and a missed chance to make more sense out of your domain.
I wrote a small example to illustrate this. Video is in this case the aggregate root. Inside the boundaries of the aggregate are the video object and its associated comments. Comments can be anonymous or can have been written by a known user (to simplify the example, I represented the user by a username but obviously, in a real application, you would have something like a UserId).
Here is the code:
public class Video {
private List<Comment> comments;
void addComment(final Comment.Builder builder) {
this.comments.add(builder.forVideo(this).build());
// ...
}
}
abstract public class Comment {
private String username;
private Video video;
public static public class Builder {
public Builder anonymous() {
this.username = null;
return this;
}
public Builder fromUser(final String username) {
this.username = username;
return this;
}
public Builder withMessage(final String message) {
this.message = message;
return this;
}
public Builder forVideo(final Video video) {
this.video = video;
return this;
}
public Comment build() {
if (username == null) {
return new AnonymousComment(message);
} else {
return new UserComment(username, message);
}
}
}
}
public class AnonymousComment extends Comment {
// ...
}
static public class UserComment extends Comment {
// ...
}
One thing to ponder on also is that aggregate boundaries contain objects and not classes. As such, it's highly possible that certain classes (mostly value objects but it can be the case of entities also) be represented in many aggregates.