We Keep Coding

Handling Mismatch Between Domain and Code First Entities

I am using Code First approach and there are some mismatch between my model for code first approach (DAL) and my domain model (BLL). I imagine my Data Model to have annotations, properties, configurations, etc related to database only and not the same for my Domain model entities and vice versa to obey separation of concerns.
How do I go about handling this situation in my application? This is more logical then technical I guess. Asked before in many places but no concrete lead yet. Hope some suggestion from SO will help.

In my experience because of the rich mapping possibilities of the Entity Framework you don't have to separate a Data access and Business logic layer at all, you just have to use the Fluent API of the Entity Framework. In one of my current project we have more than 150 classes with inheritance hierarchies and all but we can still use it without "duplicating" the objects.
Some good introductions about the fluent API can be found here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/hh134698.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh852588.aspx
About the separation: we simply use a Domain project and a Persistence.EntityFramework project where the latter contains all the mappings thus the Domain does not reference the EntityFramework.dll at all.
And if you have some specific mapping questions e.g. the ones you mentioned that are the reasons you created two layers one for DAL and the other for BL just ask them.

I would go with AutoMapper. It can help you to reduce the boilerplate code needed to convert from one object to another.
You can find it here:
https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper
Edit:
Put your domain models either in BLL or in a separate project, add reference to the BLL or this separate project in the DAL (also reference the new project in BLL), and use the AutoMapper in the DAL. So only domain models will leave the DAL.

You normally have:
A domain model (entities), which is what the O/RM (Entity Framework) uses;
A Data Transfer Objects (DTO) model, used for sending data to a view (in MVC) or by web services, etc.
I agree with Andras: the best way to go from one (domain) to the other (DTO) is by using Automapper. Of course, you can also do it by hand.
One thing that you need to realize is that there is no need for a 1-1 mapping between the domain and the DTO, the DTO can contain denormalized or calculated properties as well.

Using View-Models with Repository pattern

I'm using Domain driven N-layered application architecture with EF code first in my recent project, I defined my Repository contracts, In Domain layer.
A basic contract to make other Repositories less verbose:
public interface IRepository<TEntity, in TKey> where TEntity : class
{
TEntity GetById(TKey id);
void Create(TEntity entity);
void Update(TEntity entity);
void Delete(TEntity entity);
}
And specialized Repositories per each Aggregation root, e.g:
public interface IOrderRepository : IRepository<Order, int>
{
IEnumerable<Order> FindAllOrders();
IEnumerable<Order> Find(string text);
//other methods that return Order aggregation root
}
As you see, all of these methods depend on Domain entities.
But in some cases, an application's UI, needs some data that isn't Entity, that data may made from two or more enteritis's data(View-Models), in these cases, I define the View-Models in Application layer, because they are closely depend on an Application's needs and not to the Domain.
So, I think I have 2 way's to show data as View-Models in the UI:
Leave the specialized Repository depends on Entities only, and map the results of Repositories's method to View-Models when I want to show to user(in Application Layer usually).
Add some methods to my specialized Repositories that return their results as View-Models directly, and use these returned values, in Application Layer and then UI(these specialized Repositories's contracts that I call them Readonly Repository Contracts, put in Application Layer unlike the other Repositories'e contract that put in Domain).
Suppose, my UI needs a View-Model with 3 or 4 properties(from 3 or 4 big Entities).
It's data could be generate with simple projection, but in case 1, because my methods could not access to View-Models, I have to fetch all the fields of all 3 or 4 tables with sometimes, huge joins, and then map the results to View-Models.
But, in case 2, I could simply use projection and fill the View-Models directly.
So, I think in performance point of view, the case 2 is better than case 1. but I read that Repository should depend on Entities and not View-Models in design point of view.
Is there any better way that does not cause the Domain Layer depend on the Application layer, and also doesn't hit the performance? or is it acceptable that for reading queries, my Repositories depend on View-Models?(case2)

Perhaps using the command-query separation (at the application level) might help a bit.
You should make your repositories dependent on entities only, and keep only the trivial retrieve method - that is, GetOrderById() - on your repository (along with create / update / merge / delete, of course). Imagine that the entities, the repositories, the domain services, the user-interface commands, the application services that handles those commands (for example, a certain web controller that handles POST requests in a web application etc.) represents your write model, the write-side of your application.
Then build a separate read model that could be as dirty as you wish - put there the joins of 5 tables, the code that reads from a file the number of stars in the Universe, multiplies it with the number of books starting with A (after doing a query against Amazon) and builds up a n-dimensional structure that etc. - you get the idea :) But, on the read-model, do not add any code that deals with modifying your entities. You are free to return any View-Models you want from this read model, but do trigger any data changes from here.
The separation of reads and writes should decrease the complexity of the program and make everything a bit more manageable. And you may also see that it won't break the design rules you have mentioned in your question (hopefully).
From a performance point of view, using a read model, that is, writing the code that reads data separately from the code that writes / changes data is as best as you can get :) This is because you can even mangle some SQL code there without sleeping bad at night - and SQL queries, if written well, will give your application a considerable speed boost.
Nota bene: I was joking a bit on what and how you can code your read side - the read-side code should be as clean and simple as the write-side code, of course :)
Furthermore, you may get rid of the generic repository interface if you want, as it just clutters the domain you are modeling and forces every concrete repository to expose methods that are not necessary :) See this. For example, it is highly probable that the Delete() method would never be used for the OrderRepository - as, perhaps, Orders should never be deleted (of course, as always, it depends). Of course you can keep the database-row-managing primitives in a single module and reuse those primitives in your concrete repositories, but to not expose those primitives to anyone else but the implementation of the repositories - simply because they are not needed anywhere else and may confuse a drunk programmer if publicly exposed.
Finally, perhaps it would be also beneficial to not think about Domain Layer, Application Layer, Data Layer or View Models Layer in a too strict manner. Please read this. Packaging your software modules by their real-world meaning / purpose (or feature) is a bit better than packaging them based on an unnatural, hard-to-understand, hard-to-explain-to-a-5-old-kid criterion, that is, packaging them by layer.

Well, to me I would map the ViewModel into Model objects and use those in my repositories for reading / writing purposes, as you may know there are several tools that you can do for this, in my personal case I use automapper which I found very easy to implement.
try to keep the dependency between the Web layer and Repository layers as separate as possible saying that repos should talk only to the model and your web layer should talk to your view models.
An option could be that you can use DTO's in a service and automap those objects in the web layer (it could be the case to be a one to one mapping) the disadvantage is that you may end up with a lot of boilerplate code and the dtos and view models could feel duplicated.
the other option is to return partial hydrated objects in your model and expose those objects as DTOs and map those objects to your view models this solution could be a little bit obscure but you can make the projections you want and return only the information that you need.
you can get rid of the of the view models and expose the dtos in your web layer and use them as view models, less code but more coupled approach.

I Kindof agree with Pedro here. using a application service layer could be benificial. if your aiming for an MVVM type of implementation i would advise to create a Model class that is responsible for holding the data that is retrieved using the service layer. Mapping the data with automapper is a really good idea if your entities, DTO's and models are named consistently (so you don't have to write a lot of manual mappings).
In my experience using your entities/poco in viewmodels to display data will result in big balls of mud. Different views have different needs en will all add a need to add more properties to an entity. Slowly making your queries more complex and slower.
if your data is not changing that often you might want to consider introducing (sql/database) views that will transfer some of the heavy lifting to the database (where it is highly optimized). EF handles database views fairly well. Then retrieving the entity and mapping the data (from the views) to the model or DTO becomes fairly straightforward.

Data Layer Architecture with multiple datasources

I am trying to create a system that allows you to switch multiple data sources, e.g. switching from Entity Framework to Dapper. I am trying to find the best approach to do this.
At the moment I have different projects for different data layers, e.g. Data.EF for Entity Framework, Data.Dapper for Dapper. I have used a database approach but when it creates the models the information generated is coupled together and not easy to refactor, e.g. separation of models.
I have a project called models, this holds domain and view models, and I was thinking of creating Data.Core and follow the repository pattern. But then, doing this will add an extra layer so I would have Presentation / Business / Repository / Data.
I would like to know the best structure for this approach. Should I also do a code-first approach to create my database? This helps separate concerns and improve abstraction. This is quite a big application so getting the structure right is essential.

I'd suggest factoring your data interfaces either to the model through repository interfaces for your entities or to an infrastructure project. (I think the latter was your rationale behind creating a Data.Core project.)
Each data source will then implement the very same set of interfaces, and you can easily switch between them, even dynamically using dependency injection.
For instance, using repositories:
Model
\_ Entities
Entity
\_ Repositories
IEntityRepository
Data.EF
EntityRepository : Model.IEntityRepository
Data.Dapper
EntityRepository : Model.IEntityRepository
Then in your business you won't need to even reference Data.EF or Data.Dapper: you can work with IEntityRepository and have that reference injected dynamically.

I think you approach is correct. I'd say Presentation / business / repository / data is pretty standard these days.
I'd say the code first approach using POCOs is the preferred option today in the industry. I would advise to start creating a project containing your POCO data structures with any logic in it and take it from there. The advantage of this is that your objects model the domain more naturally. If you start with a db centric approach the problem is that, if you are not careful, you may end with objects more akin to SQL relational databases than to the real model. This was painfully evident in the first versions of .net where it was encouraged to use Datasets tighly coupled with the db and that often caused problems to work with in the business layer.
If needed you can do any complex mapping between the business objects and the db objects in the repository layer. You can use a proxy and/or a unit of work if you need to.

I would suggest you create your domain objects, use the code-first approach and also apply the repository pattern

Yes the repository pattern does bring in an extra layer. Have a look at this post for more detail information Difference between Repository and Service Layer?
RE: code-first approach to create my database
It doesn't matter how big your application is, it is a question of what else you intend to use the database for. If this database is simply a repository for this application then using code-first is fine as you are simply storing your code objects. However if you are using this database as an integration point between applications then you may wish to design the database seperately to the application models.

How to handle views in a multilayer-application

I'm working on a project which has basically three layers: Presentation, business and data.
Each layer is on a different project and all layers use DTO's defined in another project.
business layer and data layer return DTO's or Lists of DTOs when querying the database.
So far so good, but now we have to query views and those views of course do not match an existant DTO. What we have done until now is just create a special DTO, business- and data-layer classes so they were treated like normal entities (minus insert, update etc.)
But it does not seem correct. Why should the be treated like normal entities when they are clearly not. Well the DTO seems necessary, but creating "business logic" and a datalayer-class for every view seems rather akward. So I thought I create one generic business- and datalayer class which holds the logic/code for all views (I still would have to create a DTO for every different view, perhaps I could use anonymous types)
What do you think about me idea or how would you solve this issue?
EDIT: 9. August 2011
Sorry, the post may have been unclear.
By views I meant Views from a sql-server.

I feel your pain completely. The fact is that in almost every non trivial project with decent complexity you will get to the point where the things you have to show to the users on UI overlap, aggregate or are simply a subset of data of business entities. The way I tend to approach this is to accept this fact and go even further - separate the query side from the business logic side both logically and physically. The fact is that you need your entities only for actual business operations and keeping the business constraints valid, and when does this happen? Only when someone changes the data. So there is no need to even build entities when you display the data.
The way I like to structure the solutions is:
User opens the view -> Query is performed only to get the specific
data for the view -> Returned data is the model (although you could
call it a DTO as well, in this case it's the same thing)
User changes something -> Controller (or service) builds the full entity from repo,
business logic action is performed on the entity -> changes are
persisted -> result is returned
What I want to say is, it is ok to treat your read side separately from write side. It is ok to have different infrastructure for this as well. When you start to treat it differently, you will see the benefits - for example you can tailor you queries to what you need on UI.
You can even get to the point where your infrastructure will allow to build your queries with different techniques, for example using LINQ or plain SQL queries - what is best for certain scenarios.

I would advise against using DTOs between layers. I'm not convinced that there's any benefit, but I'll be happy to take instruction if you think you have some.
The harm comes in maintaining multiple parallel hierarchies that express the same idea (business objects plus multiple DTOs between layers). It means lots more code to maintain and greater possibility of errors.
Here's how I'd layer applications:
view <--- controller <--- service <--- + <--- model
+ <--- persistence
This design decouples views from services; you can reuse services with different views. The service methods implement use cases, validate inputs according to business rules, own units of work and transactions, and collaborate with model and persistence objects to fulfill requests.
Controller and view are tightly coupled; change the view, change the controller. The view does nothing other than render data provided by the controller. The controller is responsible for validation, binding, choosing the appropriate services, making response data available, and routing to the next view.
Cross cutting concerns such as logging, transactions, security, etc. are applied at the appropriate layer (usually the services).
Services and persistence should be interface-based.

I've dropped most layered architectures like this as they are a pain to manage all the transformations and are over-complicated. It's typical astronaut architecture. I've been using the following:
View models for forms/views in ASP.Net MVC. This is an important decoupling step. The UI will evolve separately to the model typically.
No service layer, instead replacing it with "command handlers" (mutating operations) and "finders" (query operations) which represent small operations and queries respectively (CQS - Command Query Separation).
Model persistence with NHibernate and ALL domain logic inside the model.
Any external services talk to the finders and command handlers as well
This leads to a very flat manageable architecture with low coupling and all these problems go away.

nHibernate, an n-Tier solution + request for advice

I'm getting the chance to develop a mildly complex project and have been investigating the various approaches that I can use to tackle this project. Typically I would have ran with the traditional 3-Tier approach but after spending some time looking around at various options I've got an inkling that some kind of ORM might be a better fit and I'm considering nHibernate. However, I'm looking for some guidance on implementing nHibernate and more specifically how I would structure my BL and DAL in conjunction with nHibernate.
With nHibernate I would create my Objects (or DTOs?) and use nHibernate methods for my CRUD interactions all in my DAL. But what I can't get my head around is the Objects defined in the DAL would be probably be better situated within the BL, i.e. where validation and other stuff can be performed easily, and I just use the DAL from the various ObjectFactory's / ObjectRepositories. Unfortunately it seems through the many articles I've read this isn't mentioned or skirted over and I'm a tad confused.
What is the more accepted or easier method of implementation when using nHibernate in a 3 Tier system? Alternatively, what is the conventional method of exposing objects through the business layer from the data layer to the presentation?

My personal experience with nHibernate has led me to decide that the data access layer becomes so thin it never has made any sense to me to separate it from the business logic. Much of your data access code is already separated into xml files (or various other distinctive methods like Fluent nHibernate) and since joins are handled almost transparently your queries using criteria objects are rarely more than a few lines.

I suspect you're overthinking this. nHibernate is basically a pretty simple tool; what it basically does is manage the serialization of your records in your database to and from similarly structured objects in your data model. That's basically it. Nothing says you can't encapsulate your Hibernate objects in Business Layer objects for validation; that's perfectly fine. But understand that the operations of validation and serialization are fundamentally different; Hibernate manages the serialization component, and does it quite nicely. You can consider the Hibernate-serializable objects as effectively "atomic".
Basically, what you want is this: nHibernate IS your Data Access Layer. (You can, of course, have other methods of Data Access in your Data Access Layer, but if you're going to use Hibernate, you should keep to the basic Hibernate data design, i.e. simple objects that perform a relatively straightforward mapping of record to object.) If your design requires that you use a different design (deeply composited objects dependent upon multiple overlapping tables) that doesn't map well into Hibernate, you might have to abandon using Hibernate; otherwise, just go with a simple POCO approach as implied by nHibernate.

I'm a fan of letting the architecture emerge, but this is what my starting architecture would look like on typical ntier asp.net mvc project if I were starting it today using NHibernate.
First off, I would try to keep as much domain code out of the controller as possible. Therefore, I would create a service layer / facade over the business layer that the controller (or code behind) makes calls to. I would split my objects into two types: 1) objects with business behavior that are used on the write side, and 2) ViewModel / DTO objects that are used for displaying data and taking the initial data entry. These DTO's would have all of the view specific concerns like simple validation attributes etc... The DTOs could have their own NHibernate mappings, or they could be projected using NHibernate's AliasToBean feature. They would be mapped to business objects once they get passed the controller in operations.
As far as the Data Access layer goes, I would probably would use NHibernate directly in the service layer. I would not use the repository pattern unless I knew that I had to be able to swap out the ORM. NHibernate is already a persistence abstraction. Putting a repository over it makes you give up a lot of features.

My 02 cents ( since there is no on-answer-fits-all):
The DAL should ONLY be responsible for data retrievel and persistence.
you can have a library containing your Model ( objects) which are filled by the DAL, but are loosly coupled (in theory, you should be able to write a new DAL using other technology and plug it instead of the NHIBERNATE one, even if you are not going to)
for client<-> BL talk, i would seriously advice views/dto's to avoid model coupling with the client (trust, me.. i'm cleaning up an application like this and it's hell)
anyways.. i'm talking about the situation we are using here which follows this structure:
client (winforms and web) <-> View/Presenter <-> WCF Services using messages <-> BL <-> DAL

I have NHibernate based apps in production and while it's better than most DALs, I'm at the point I could never recommend anyone use NHibernate any longer. The sophistication that is required to work with the session to do any advanced application is just absurd. For doing simple apps NHibernate is very trivial for enterprise application the complexity is off the charts.
At this point I've went to the decision to solve data access with 3 different choices depending on scope, using a document database (specifically Raven currently) for full scale application, for medium amounts of data access using LinqToSql and for trivial access I'm actually using raw ADO.NET connections with great success.
For reference, these statements are after I've spent 2+ years of development time using NHibernate and every time I've ever felt like I understood NHibernate fully I would run into some new limitation or giant monkey wrench I have to do deal with. It's also lead me to realize I started designing applications in regards to NHibernate which is one of my number one biggest reasons for using an ORM to not have my applications' design be dictated to by the database.
Not having to deal with session management with the complexity of NHibernate has been one of the largest boons to me for moving to RavenDB. With Raven you have very little need to manage the session except when you're doing extreme performance optimization or working with batch actions.