We Keep Coding

How to code/design the Model part in Caliburn.Micro?

I am new to MVVM pattern and Caliburn.Micro. I've read some tutorials on how to get started, but I'm confused about the Model part of MVVM in the context of Caliburn.
I want to create my first MVVM application and I have some design questions:
In tutorials, the Model was presented as simple property in
ViewModel. How should I manage more complex models? Is there any
naming convention? Obviously, there should be some external classes
made for my models, but how should I communicate between my models
and the view?
How should I keep references to many instances of one complex model?
For ex. cumtomers (instances of Customer model class)
Is there a possibility to manipulate one model class in many
ViewModels? How should I store my model reference, so it'll be
visible from different ViewModels?
Where should I put my code for more complex model manupulation/file,
database storage? How should I invoke such code? I'm not asking here
about SQLConnections, but MVVM best practices. :)
Thanks in advance for any help :)
EDIT:-------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your anwser. I uderstand the topic more clearly, but I'm still confused about some details.
For an example, let's assume this little application. I have a form that allows me to add a new Customer. It has a few fields like Name, Surname etc.
After pressing the button, I invoke the addCustomer command in the ViewModel. I want my program to store the newly created customer inside the database.
My view also has the List control (whatever), which displays my customers as raw strings (like "Name: John, Surname: Doe, Address: ..." I know it's dumb to make it like this, but i need an example of model manipulation (like .toString()))
For this example, I've created a bunch of stuff to illustrate my vision of that process:
fields - it's a set of form fields like Name, Surname etc.
customerSet - it's a set of Customer class to store all created
customers
.addToDatabase(fields) - a method which puts newly created customer
to the database
.getStrings - a method which prepares a set of strings to be
displayed by the list in CustomerView
I think about 2 approaches that would be good for a solution:
First approach. I don't like this one. The only advantage is, that
ViewModel handles all the logic inside application. Sharing model
would be a serious problem here, because saving methods are bound to
the ViewModel class.
Second, MVC like approach. To me it's the most intuitive one. But - I
don't know where should I store CustomersModel object, so few
ViewModels could have access to it.
Which is the better one? Or maybe another approach that is more suitable for MVVM?
Another problem is: Where should I put my method that will load all the Customers from the database, so they could be displayes on the list? In "get method" inside viewmodel, or inside a model class?

In tutorials, the Model was presented as simple property in ViewModel.
How should I manage more complex models? Is there any naming
convention? Obviously, there should be some external classes made for
my models, but how should I communicate between my models and the
view?
Your models should represent whatever it is they need to whether it's a customer, account, etc. The view models job is to handle the interaction between the view and models.
How should I keep references to many instances of one complex model?
For ex. cumtomers (instances of Customer model class)
Generally, you will map complex models to more friendly format for display, you can do it manually or use a tool like AutoMapper.
Is there a possibility to manipulate one model class in many
ViewModels? How should I store my model reference, so it'll be visible
from different ViewModels?
If you're working with a local db you can pass IDs around. If it's a service you could persist the model locally for other view models to work with. You could also inject a singleton, ISharedData, into view models that need to work with shared data.
Where should I put my code for more complex model manupulation/file,
database storage? How should I invoke such code? I'm not asking here
about SQLConnections, but MVVM best practices. :)
Create services for more complex model manipulation / business logic. Inject the services into view models that require them. ICustomerService, IAccountService, etc.
EDIT:-------------------------------------------------------
You're first approach is correct. To your point about sharing the model being a serious problem because saving methods are bound to the view model class. The view model will have a SaveCustomerCommand that is fired when the button is clicked, because of its binding.
The SaveCustomerCommand will persist the CustomerModel, regardless of how the CustomerModel is persisted. So if its a database, the view model might have a reference to a context and issue a _db.Save(CustomerModel). If another view model needs to manipulate a CustomerModel, it will do so by using the context. The view model could also have a reference to a CustomerService that handles the crud for the CustomerModel.
Here's how this might look:
public class AddCustomerViewModel : Screen
{
private readonly ICustomerService _customerService;
public AddCustomerViewModel(ICustomerService customerService)
{
_customerService = customerService;
}
//If button is named x:Name="SaveCustomer" CM will
//bind it by convention to this method
public void SaveCustomer(Customer customer)
{
_customerService.Save(customer);
}
}
public class CustomerListViewModel : Screen
{
private readonly ICustomerService _customerService;
private List<CustomerDisplayModel> _customers;
public CustomerListViewModel(ICustomerService customerService)
{
_customerService = customerService;
}
public List<CustomerDisplayModel> Customers
{
get { return _customers; }
set
{
_customers = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange();
}
}
//only fires once, unlike OnActivate()
protected override void OnInitialize()
{
var customers = _customerService.LoadAllCustomers();
//could just use the model but this shows how one might map from
//the domain model to a display model, AutoMapper could be used for this
Customers = customers.Select(c => new CustomerDisplayModel(c)).ToList();
}
}
public interface ICustomerService
{
List<Customer> LoadAllCustomers();
void Save(Customer customer);
}
//same as button, Label named x:Name="CustomerName" will bind
// to CustomerName
public class CustomerDisplayModel
{
private readonly Customer _customer;
public CustomerDisplayModel(Customer customer)
{
_customer = customer;
}
public string CustomerName
{
get { return _customer.Name; }
set { _customer.Name = value; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return _customer.Surname; }
set { _customer.Surname = value; }
}
public string Address
{
get { return _customer.Address; }
set { _customer.Address = value; }
}
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}

Design Pattern decisions - REST API & DAL

I am working on application that has WCF REST API and below some DAL. Everything is written in C#.
All REST methods are GET, but many of them have generic string parameter (among other params) that I parse and map to a list object. It works well.
When it comes to mapping to Dto object I would like to use some design pattern to instantiate correct Dto based on mapped REST params. Not sure is it possible since I have that generic string parameter (param name will not be the same all the time) ?
Also, based on created Dto type I would like to choose appropriate DB method to call, command design pattern for this one, I guess?
Thanks for help,
I could explain more if needed.

I have developed same kind of application (WCF REST service).
I have created .net solution and added below project
BusinessLayer
DataAcessLayer
DataService (WCF Service)
EntityLayer
DataService:
public SnapshotData GetSnapshot(string symbol, int nocache)
{
SnapshotData objSnapshotData;
try
{
objSnapshotData = (new SnapshotBAL()).GetSanpshotData(symbol);
SerializeObject(objSnapshotData, localCacheKey);
return objSnapshotData;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return null;
}
}
BusinessLayer:
namespace BusinessLayer
{
public class SnapshotBAL
{
public Snapshot GetSanpshot(string symbol)
{
return (new SnaapshotDAL()).GetSanpshot(symbol);
}
}
}
EntiryLayer:
namespace EntityLayer
{
public class Snapshot
{
public DateTime time { get; set; }
public double price { get; set; }
}
}
DataAccessLayer:
namespace DataAccessLayer
{
public class SnaapshotDAL : PrototypeDB
{
public Snapshot GetSanpshot(string symbol)
{
AddParameter("o_snapshot");
AddParameter("i_symbol", symbol);
Snapshot objSanapshot = new Snapshot();
return ObjectHelper.FillObject<Snapshot>(typeof(Snapshot), GetReader("A_SM7_V1_P.GetSnapshotQuick"));
}
}
}

The key line in the question is this:
...design pattern to instantiate correct Dto based on mapped REST params
To me this sounds like you want to use the Factory Pattern.
Urgh. Yes I know, cargo cult programming etc, BUT(!), there are good reasons:
You want to intialise a class (the DAL) based upon some settings
You want those settings defined at the top level (REST mapping)
You want lower level code to be totally ignorant of the settings (right?) so that they can change arbitrarily without requiring system wide refactors.
Sure, you could always just pass an instance of the DAL down the stack but that isn't always possible and can get a bit scrappy.
Alternatively...
Consider creating a DAL implementation that can be made aware of the various switches and will delegate calls to the correct DAL implementation. This might actually be lighter weight than a straight up factory.

Domain Model with partially loaded objects

Let's say I have an application which consists of both client and server. Client is using MVVM pattern (with WPF) and server is simply a WCF service which fetches some data from database and returns data as DTO-objects to client. In client, DataAccess layer converts these DTOs to domain objects and passes them to Model. ViewModel uses Model to fetch data (Domain Object) and populates itself with it.
To optimize database performance, each ViewModel is given only the data it really needs and nothing more (as recommended by many sources). For example, let's say there is an entity called DbCustomer which has 30 properties, and there are also 3 different Views related to customers: CustomerProfileView, CustomersListView and CustomerThirdView. Every view needs different portion of data: CustomerProfileView uses 20 properties, CustomersListViewuses 10 properties and CustomerThirdView uses only 4 properties. For each View, only required properties are fetched from database and delivered to ViewModel.
Now the problem arises: how should I design my Domain Objects to support this?
Solution 1, one partially loaded Domain Object (no-go)
If I have only one Customer Domain Object which is used by all ViewModels, it would have different data depending on the ViewModel that requested it. Obviously this is a no-go way because if I have to use this Customer object somewhere else I cannot be sure does it have enough properties loaded.
For example, I might have method GetDataStoragePath which is supposed to return string describing path to customer's private files. The method requires properties FirstName, LastName, SSN and IsExternalCustomer. Now, let's say CustomerThirdView doesn't need IsExternalCustomer, so it is not loaded when CustomerThirdViewModel requests Model to load Customer. Now if I use this Customer somewhere else (it is not a ViewModel specific object), the method GetDataStoragePath will fail.
Solution 2, three different Domain Objects
In another solution there would be 3 different Domain Objects (used as data containers) with suitable interfaces, and thenGetDataStoragePath would depend only from this interface. Example:
public interface ICanGetDataStoragePath {
string FirstName { get; }
string LastName { get; }
string SSN { get; }
bool IsExternalCustomer { get; }
}
public CustomerProfileData : ICanGetDataStoragePath { ... } // Implements interface
public CustomerListViewData : ICanGetDataStoragPath { ... } // Implements interface
public CustomerThirdViewData { ... } // Does NOT implement interface
public class CustomerLogic : ICustomerLogic {
public string GetDataStoragePath(ICanGetDataStoragePath customer) {...}
}
This would lead to Anemic Domain Model but it is not a problem in my opinion. However, it seems messy since I can easily imagine that there would be 20 different methods with different needs which would result in 20 interfaces (and only for Customer, there are LOTS of other domain objects also). Of course in this simple case I could pass all four parameters separately to GetDataStoragePath but in real life there are many more required properties.
Are there any other options? What would be the best way to solve the problem?

Your model obviously has to much Data. Why not make 3 models and one composite model?
i.e.
public class CustomerProfile
{
public string Phone { get; set; }
// other profile fields
}
public class Customer
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string SSN { get; set; }
public bool IsExternalCustomer { get; set; }
public CustomerProfile Profile { get; set; }
}
Then you'd put all of your always required fields into the Customer class and group the rest together, i.e. in a CustomerProfile class. If it's null, then that data wasn't fetched and isn't available

When should I write code in the controller vs. model?

Without a doubt I know what the controllers and models are used for. However, I am able to write code that interacts with my db, for example adding users to a table, on either the controller or model. At what times should I write code in the controller vs. in model? Even though both work, what would be a more organized or practical way. Could you please post examples if the answer is ambiguous?Thx

For that, you should add a logic layer or logic classes. The controller should determine wants to do and can do, shuffle them in the right direction (logic layer), then determine what to show the user after the logic. Putting the logic in a separate layer will help keep your controllers lean and promote code reuse.
In the domain core, we only have models with properties. All logic is performed in a different layer, except for things like a property that returns fields concatenated in a format.

Code to access the database should be in service layer instead of keeping in Controller or Model.
Accessing Database Entities from Controller
Here is my answer for the above question, you can also read others answers why you should keep in separate layer.
namespace MyProject.Web.Controllers
{
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IKittenService _kittenService ;
public MyController(IKittenService kittenService)
{
_kittenService = kittenService;
}
public ActionResult Kittens()
{
// var result = _kittenService.GetLatestKittens(10);
// Return something.
}
}
}
namespace MyProject.Domain.Kittens
{
public class Kitten
{
public string Name {get; set; }
public string Url {get; set; }
}
}
namespace MyProject.Services.KittenService
{
public interface IKittenService
{
IEnumerable<Kitten> GetLatestKittens(int fluffinessIndex=10);
}
}
namespace MyProject.Services.KittenService
{
public class KittenService : IKittenService
{
public IEnumerable<Kitten> GetLatestKittens(int fluffinessIndex=10)
{
using(var db = new KittenEntities())
{
return db.Kittens // this explicit query is here
.Where(kitten=>kitten.fluffiness > 10)
.Select(kitten=>new {
Name=kitten.name,
Url=kitten.imageUrl
}).Take(10);
}
}
}
}

ASP.NET MVC and MVC, in general, is a presentation layer pattern; thus your interaction with the database should be in a layer beyond the presentation layer, usually a data-access layer, but it could be a service layer or business layer as well.

Where to put global rules validation in DDD

I'm new to DDD, and I'm trying to apply it in real life. There is no questions about such validation logic, as null check, empty strings check, etc - that goes directly to entity constructor/property. But where to put validation of some global rules like 'Unique user name'?
So, we have entity User
public class User : IAggregateRoot
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
// other data and behavior
}
And repository for users
public interface IUserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
User FindByName(string name);
}
Options are:
Inject repository to entity
Inject repository to factory
Create operation on domain service
???
And each option more detailed:
1 .Inject repository to entity
I can query repository in entities constructor/property. But I think that keeping reference to repository in entity is a bad smell.
public User(IUserRepository repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_repository.FindByName(value) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistsException();
_name = value;
}
}
Update: We can use DI to hide dependency between User and IUserRepository via Specification object.
2. Inject repository to factory
I can put this verification logic in UserFactory. But what if we want to change name of already existing user?
3. Create operation on domain service
I can create domain service for creating and editing users. But someone can directly edit name of user without calling that service...
public class AdministrationService
{
private IUserRepository _userRepository;
public AdministrationService(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
_userRepository = userRepository;
}
public void RenameUser(string oldName, string newName)
{
if (_userRepository.FindByName(newName) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistException();
User user = _userRepository.FindByName(oldName);
user.Name = newName;
_userRepository.Save(user);
}
}
4. ???
Where do you put global validation logic for entities?
Thanks!

Most of the times it is best to place these kind of rules in Specification objects.
You can place these Specifications in your domain packages, so anybody using your domain package has access to them. Using a specification, you can bundle your business rules with your entities, without creating difficult-to-read entities with undesired dependencies on services and repositories. If needed, you can inject dependencies on services or repositories into a specification.
Depending on the context, you can build different validators using the specification objects.
Main concern of entities should be keeping track of business state - that's enough of a responsibility and they shouldn't be concerned with validation.
Example
public class User
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Two specifications:
public class IdNotEmptySpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return !string.IsNullOrEmpty(subject.Id);
}
}
public class NameNotTakenSpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
// omitted code to set service; better use DI
private Service.IUserNameService UserNameService { get; set; }
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return UserNameService.NameIsAvailable(subject.Name);
}
}
And a validator:
public class UserPersistenceValidator : IValidator<User>
{
private readonly IList<ISpecification<User>> Rules =
new List<ISpecification<User>>
{
new IdNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotTakenSpecification()
// and more ... better use DI to fill this list
};
public bool IsValid(User entity)
{
return BrokenRules(entity).Count() == 0;
}
public IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(User entity)
{
return Rules.Where(rule => !rule.IsSatisfiedBy(entity))
.Select(rule => GetMessageForBrokenRule(rule));
}
// ...
}
For completeness, the interfaces:
public interface IValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T entity);
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(T entity);
}
public interface ISpecification<T>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(T subject);
}
Notes
I think Vijay Patel's earlier answer is in the right direction, but I feel it's a bit off. He suggests that the user entity depends on the specification, where I belief that this should be the other way around. This way, you can let the specification depend on services, repositories and context in general, without making your entity depend on them through a specification dependency.
References
A related question with a good answer with example: Validation in a Domain Driven Design.
Eric Evans describes the use of the specification pattern for validation, selection and object construction in chapter 9, pp 145.
This article on the specification pattern with an application in .Net might be of interest to you.

I would not recommend disallowing to change properties in entity, if it's a user input.
For example, if validation did not pass, you can still use the instance to display it in user interface with validation results, allowing user to correct the error.
Jimmy Nilsson in his "Applying Domain-Driven Design and Patterns" recommends to validate for a particular operation, not just for persisting. While an entity could be successfully persisted, the real validation occurs when an entity is about to change it's state, for example 'Ordered' state changes to 'Purchased'.
While creating, the instance must be valid-for-saving, which involves checking for uniqueness. It's different from valid-for-ordering, where not only uniqueness must be checked, but also, for example, creditability of a client, and availability at the store.
So, validation logic should not be invoked on a property assignments, it should be invoked upon aggregate level operations, whether they are persistent or not.

Edit: Judging from the other answers, the correct name for such a 'domain service' is specification. I've updated my answer to reflect this, including a more detailed code sample.
I'd go with option 3; create a domain service specification which encapsulates the actual logic that performs the validation. For example, the specification initially calls a repository, but you could replace it with a web service call at a later stage. Having all that logic behind an abstract specification will keep the overall design more flexible.
To prevent someone from editing the name without validating it, make the specification a required aspect of editing the name. You can achieve this by changing the API of your entity to something like this:
public class User
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetName(string name, ISpecification<User, string> specification)
{
// Insert basic null validation here.
if (!specification.IsSatisfiedBy(this, name))
{
// Throw some validation exception.
}
this.Name = name;
}
}
public interface ISpecification<TType, TValue>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(TType obj, TValue value);
}
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification<User, string>
{
private IUserRepository repository;
public UniqueUserNameSpecification(IUserRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User obj, string value)
{
if (value == obj.Name)
{
return true;
}
// Use this.repository for further validation of the name.
}
}
Your calling code would look something like this:
var userRepository = IoC.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
var specification = new UniqueUserNameSpecification(userRepository);
user.SetName("John", specification);
And of course, you can mock ISpecification in your unit tests for easier testing.

I’m not an expert on DDD but I have asked myself the same questions and this is what I came up with:
Validation logic should normally go into the constructor/factory and setters. This way you guarantee that you always have valid domain objects. But if the validation involves database queries that impact your performance, an efficient implementation requires a different design.
(1) Injecting Entities: Injecting entities can be technical difficult and also makes managing application performance very hard due to the fragmentation of you database logic. Seemingly simple operations can now have an unexpectedly performance impact. It also makes it impossible to optimize your domain object for operations on groups of the same kind of entities, you no longer can write a single group query, and instead you always have individual queries for each entity.
(2) Injecting repository: You should not put any business logic in repositories. Keep repositories simple and focused. They should act as if they were collections and only contain logic for adding, removing and finding objects (some even spinoff the find methods to other objects).
(3) Domain service This seems the most logical place to handle the validation that requires database querying. A good implementation would make the constructor/factory and setters involved package private, so that the entities can only be created / modified with the domain service.

I would use a Specification to encapsulate the rule. You can then call when the UserName property is updated (or from anywhere else that might need it):
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification
{
public bool IsSatisifiedBy(User user)
{
// Check if the username is unique here
}
}
public class User
{
string _Name;
UniqueUserNameSpecification _UniqueUserNameSpecification; // You decide how this is injected
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (_UniqueUserNameSpecification.IsSatisifiedBy(this))
{
_Name = value;
}
else
{
// Execute your custom warning here
}
}
}
}
It won't matter if another developer tries to modify User.Name directly, because the rule will always execute.
Find out more here

In my CQRS Framework, every Command Handler class also contains a ValidateCommand method, which then calls the appropriate business/validation logic in the Domain (mostly implemented as Entity methods or Entity static methods).
So the caller would do like so:
if (cmdService.ValidateCommand(myCommand) == ValidationResult.OK)
{
// Now we can assume there will be no business reason to reject
// the command
cmdService.ExecuteCommand(myCommand); // Async
}
Every specialized Command Handler contains the wrapper logic, for instance:
public ValidationResult ValidateCommand(MakeCustomerGold command)
{
var result = new ValidationResult();
if (Customer.CanMakeGold(command.CustomerId))
{
// "OK" logic here
} else {
// "Not OK" logic here
}
}
The ExecuteCommand method of the command handler will then call the ValidateCommand() again, so even if the client didn't bother, nothing will happen in the Domain that is not supposed to.

in short you have 4 options:
IsValid method: transition an entity to a state (potentially invalid) and ask it to validate itself.
Validation in application services.
TryExecute pattern.
Execute / CanExecute pattern.
read more here

Create a method, for example, called IsUserNameValid() and make that accessible from everywhere. I would put it in the user service myself. Doing this will not limit you when future changes arise. It keeps the validation code in one place (implementation), and other code that depends on it will not have to change if the validation changes You may find that you need to call this from multiple places later on, such as the ui for visual indication without having to resort to exception handling. The service layer for correct operations, and the repository (cache, db, etc.) layer to ensure that stored items are valid.

I like option 3. Simplest implementation could look so:
public interface IUser
{
string Name { get; }
bool IsNew { get; }
}
public class User : IUser
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public bool IsNew { get; private set; }
}
public class UserService : IUserService
{
public void ValidateUser(IUser user)
{
var repository = RepositoryFactory.GetUserRepository(); // use IoC if needed
if (user.IsNew && repository.UserExists(user.Name))
throw new ValidationException("Username already exists");
}
}

Create domain service
Or I can create domain service for
creating and editing users. But
someone can directly edit name of user
without calling that service...
If you properly designed your entities this should not be an issue.