I'm a bit confused about the relationship a BLL and DAL has. Should the BLL encapsulate the DAL via dependancy injection? Or should the BLL only act on domain objects and the DAL save/update seperately?
For example imagine (in a typical MVC app) a Cancel Order function that requires you to update the order and update the stock. Would the following be how my action would look?
public ActionResult CancelOrder (Guid orderId) {
Order order = orderRepository.Get(orderId);
StockItem stockItem = stockRepository.Get(order.StockItemId);
_orderService.CancelOrder(order, stockItem);
orderRepository.Update(order);
orderRepository.Update(stock);
Return View();
}
Or should it be more like the following?
public ActionResult CancelOrder (Guid orderId) {
_orderService.CancelOrder(orderId);
Return View();
}
(within OrderService)
public void CancelOrder(Guid orderId) {
Order order = orderRepository.Get(orderId);
StockItem stockItem = stockRepository.Get(order.StockItemId);
order.Cancelled = true;
stockItem.AmountInStock = stockItem.AmountInStock + order.Amount;
orderRepository.Update(order);
orderRepository.Update(stock);
}
With this option everything would then be handled by the BLL including data access. The repositories would be injected in to avoid tight coupling. Any entity retrieval would then take the form of _orderService.GetOrder(orderId); as apposed to going straight to the repository.
Excuse the crudeness of the examples as I don't have a lot of time. Does any of what I've written even remotely make sense or am I off in the wilderness?
Definitely not the first option, which embeds your business logic in the controller. The problem is not that the controller accesses data objects per se, but that a procedure dictated by business rules has to be followed. This procedure has no place in the controller.
So you should either go with the second option, or possibly make Cancel a method of Order. If you have already written similar code just go with consistency.
Think of separation of concerns, Controller is from MVC pattern which is PRESENTATION pattern, so controller should contains presentation logic support presentation layer, not business logic.
It is agreed that business logic should be in domain entities, but there are also some APPLICATION logic which plays a roles as coordinators between repositories, that is why the service layer is downed on the road.
Therefore, option 2 should be in your way.
You're really asking 2 questions here :
What should be in the Controller vs in the business layer ?
=> I tend to think the code in your first snippet is the right level of responsibility for an Application layer service (and consequently for a Controller if you admit that the two can be likened, which there's a lot of discussion about these times). Getting the Order from the repository and saving it after the cancel operation hardly seems like pure business logic. It has more to do with the surrounding transaction/unit of work and the plumbing of your use case.
I'd just change one thing - try to save changes to all entities affected by your transaction in one go. If you have to manually update every entity that could possibly be changed at the end of an operation, it's going to be a big pain and will pollute the controllers unnecessarily. Create a unit of work system (or use an existing implementation) that will persist all changes at once and remove all the Update() methods in your repositories.
Other than that, as Jon suggests, I also believe that a rich Order domain object containing the Cancel() method would be preferrable to a service - but this is another debate.
What kind of relationship should there be between BLL and DAL ?
=> The BLL shouldn't be tightly coupled to the DAL and as the centermost layer, it isn't supposed to reference outer layers directly. This way you can easily reuse your BLL in another application, with another DAL, etc.
However, there are times when some business objects need direct access to other objects they don't already have a reference to, which basically means getting them from the database. In other words, some operations in the BLL need to talk to the repositories. Therefore, I always place repository interfaces in the BLL, but their implementations reside in the DAL, and they are injected into the BLL at runtime.
As a result, the BLL is only loosely coupled to the DAL. It remains persistence ignorant in that it manipulates only facades (repositories) which look like neutral collections of objects and stays oblivious of how data is stored, hydrated, and so on.
BLL should act on the business objects that you have created for your application. It, ideally, should not be aware of database and related operations. If you are looking to keep things loosely coupled, make use of dependency injection to call methods from your DAL.
Related
I am trying to learn some concepts about DDD and the part of persisting Aggregates is confusing me a bit. I have read various answers on the topic on SO but none of them seem to answer my question.
Let's say I have an Aggregate root of Product. Now I do not want to inject the ProductRepository that will persist this aggregate root in the constructor of the Product class itself. Imagine me writting code like
var prod = new Product(Factory.CreateProductRepository(), name, costprice);
in the UI layer. If I do not want to inject my repository via dependency injection in the Aggregate Root, then the question is where should this code go? Should I create a class only for persisting this AR? Can anyone suggest what is the correct & recommended approach to solve this issue?
My concern is not which ORM to use or how to make this AR ORM friendly or easy to persist, my question is around the right use of repositories or any persistence class.
Application Services
You are right, the domain layer should know nothing about persistence. So injecting the repository into Product is indeed a bad idea.
The DDD concept you are looking for is called Application Service. An application service is not part of the domain layer, but lives in the service layer (sometimes called application layer). Application services represent a use case (as opposed to a domain concept) and have the following responsibilities:
Perform input validation
Enforce access control
Perform transaction control
The last point means that an application service will query a repository for an aggregate of a specific type (e.g. by ID), modify it by using one of its methods, and then pass it back to the repository for updating the DB.
Repository Ganularity
Concerning your second question
Should I create a class only for persisting this AR?
Yes, creating one repository per aggregate is a common approach. Often, standard repository operations like getById(), update(), delete(), etc. are extracted into a reusable class (either a base class or by aggregation).
You can also create additional repositories for non-domain information, e.g. statistical data. In these cases, make sure that you don't accidentally miss a domain concept, however.
I want to know the right concept about it. If I have a MVC application with Repository Pattern, where the BL should be?
Should it be inside the Model? Model should have all the business
logic before call the unitofwork to insert or not the data into
database?
Should it be in the controller? Before call the model?
Should I have a service layer to do the business logic and decide if
I should call the Model to call the UnitOfWork to save the data?
A good explanation will help a lot too.
The short answer - it depends. If it's a fairly complex or sizable application, I like to create a service layer project with the repositories as dependencies. If it's a small application, I'll put the logic in the controller. In my opinion, if it takes more time and effort to create the service layer than it would be to create the application (i.e. one or two controllers), then it doesn't make sense to me to go that route. You also need to consider the likelihood that the application will grow. What might start small could grow into something much bigger and in that case, again, it might be more beneficial to create the separate service layer.
The third one... and then some.
Your application structure could look like this (each in different projects):
Data storage layer (e.g. SQL database)
ORM (e.g. NHibernate or Entity Framework)
Domain (including abstract repositories and entities)
Service layer (and optionally business)
MVC application (which has it's own models relating to the entities)
but there are many ways to go about this depending on the complexity and size of your application.
There is no "correct" answer to this question, it is primarily opinion-based. You can read about my opinion in the following project wiki:
https://github.com/danludwig/tripod/wiki/Why-Tripod%3F
https://github.com/danludwig/tripod/wiki/Dependency-and-Control-Inversion
https://github.com/danludwig/tripod/wiki/Tripod-101
https://github.com/danludwig/tripod/wiki/Testing,-Testing,-1-2-3
https://github.com/danludwig/tripod/wiki/Command-Query-Responsibility-Segregation-(CQRS)
Another piece of advice I would like to offer is never put any business logic in viewmodels or entities. These classes should not have methods, only properties to contain data. Separate your data from behavior. Use models for data, and other types for behavior (methods).
If DbContext is in the DAL then the generic type arguments of the DbSets cannot be the BLL classes (domain model). What are the best practice ways to separate these layers? An extra model in the DAL? Interfaces?
If you're doing DDD, I believe the repository (at least the interface for it) is part of your business / domain layer. Your implementation of the repository will be a separate assembly which would have to reference that business / domain layer. So your DAL knows about your business objects, but not the other way around. To do dependency injection, you'll probably have in your DAL layer something that configures your container to use Repository for your IRepository interface. If you need a unit of work patter, your interface would likely have to be part of the business layer as well. Again your implementation will be in your DAL and the DAL would configure the DI container appropriately. This is actually one of the things I dislike about the repository pattern, as you either need to ensure your users of your interface correctly manage the IUnitOfWork, or you need something to wrap the repository which does so.
In a traditional n-layer architecture, things are a bit different. In that case your business layer can talk to the DAL, and I've normally built the DAL to have DTOs which represent a row of data in the database. The business layer will then use these DTOs to hydrate the business objects (or if you're using something like CSLA.Net, the business objects know how to hydrate themselves).
Either way there shouldn't be a situation where you end up with a circular reference.
I usually consider the domain model as a separate layer.
If we look at the classic MVC paradaigm, then the model is used by both the View and the Controller.
No reason why it shouldn't be used by the DAL as well.
The Model, however, will not reference the DAL; all operations against the data store will be done by the controller.
So the general flow of things would be-
user interacts with the View
View invokes a method on the Controller
Controller uses the DAL to retrieve Model objects
Controller invokes methods on Model objects, saves them (using DAL) if necessary, and returns an answer to the View
Your BLL or Domain Layer should not worry about data access technical details, BLL shold be technology independent. If you want to stick with Entity framework you should generate POCO entities and move them to seperate layer, this way you can avoid circualr references.
I think I've hit that "paralysis by analysis" state.
I have an MVC app, using EF as an ORM.
So I'm trying to decide on the best data access pattern, and so far I'm thinking putting all data access logic into controllers is the way to go.. but it kinda doesn't sound right.
Another option is creating an external repository, handling data interactions.
Here's my pros/cons:
If embedding data access to controllers, I will end up with code like this:
using (DbContext db = new DbContext())
{
User user = db.Users.Where(x=>x.Name == "Bob").Single();
user.Address.Street = "some st";
db.SaveChanges();
}
So with this, I get full benefits of lazy loading, I close connection right after I'm done, I'm flexible on where clause - all the niceties.
The con - I'm mixing a bunch of stuff in a single method - data checking, data access, UI interactions.
With Repository, I'm externalizing data access, and in theory can just replace repos if I decide to use ado.net or go with different database.
But, I don't see a good clean way to realize lazy loading, and how to control DbContext/connection life time.
Say, I have IRepository interface with CRUD methods, how would I load a List of addresses that belong to a given user ? Making methods like GetAddressListByUserId looks ugly, wrong,
and will make me to create a bunch of methods that are just as ugly, and make little sense when using ORM.
I'm sure this problem been solved like million times, and hope there's a solution somewhere..
And one more question on repository pattern - how do you deal with objects that are properties ? E.g. User has a list of addresses, how would you retrieve that list ? Create a repository for the address ? With ORM the address object doesn't have to have a reference back to user, nor Id field, with repo - it will have to have all that. More code, more exposed properties..
The approach you choose depends a lot on the type of project you are going to be working with. For small projects where a Rapid Application Development (RAD) approach is required, it might almost be OK to use your EF model directly in the MVC project and have data access in the controllers, but the more the project grows, the more messy it will become and you will start running into more and more problems. In case you want good design and maintainability, there are several different approaches, but in general you can stick to the following:
Keep your controllers and Views clean. Controllers should only control the application flow and not contain data access or even business logic. Views should only be used for presentation - give it a ViewModel and it will present it as Html (no business logic or calculations). A ViewModel per view is a pretty clean way of doing it.
A typical controller action would look like:
public ActionResult UpdateCompany(CompanyViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
Company company = SomeCompanyViewModelHelper.
MapCompanyViewModelToDomainObject(model);
companyService.UpdateCompany(company);
return RedirectToRoute(/* Wherever you go after company is updated */);
}
// Return the same view with highlighted errors
return View(model);
}
Due to the aforementioned reasons, it is good to abstract your data access (testability, ease of switching the data provider or ORM or whatever, etc.). The Repository pattern is a good choice, but here you also get a few implementation options. There's always been a lot of discussion about generic/non-generic repositories, whether or not one should return IQueryables, etc. But eventually it's for you to choose.
Btw, why do you want lazy loading? As a rule, you know exactly what data you require for a specific view, so why would you choose to fetch it in a deferred way, thus making extra database calls, instead of eager loading everything you need in one call? Personally, I think it's okay to have multiple Get methods for fetching objects with or without children. E.g.
public class CompanyRepository
{
Get(int Id);
Get(string name);
GetWithEmployees(int id);
...
}
It might seem a bit overkill and you may choose a different approach, but as long as you have a pattern you follow, maintaining the code is much easier.
Personally I do it this way:
I have an abstract Domain layer, which has methods not just CRUD, but specialized methods, for example UsersManager.Authenticate(), etc. It inside uses data access logic, or data-access layer abstraction (depending on the level of abstraction I need to have).
It is always better to have an abstract dependency at least. Here are some pros of it:
you can replace one implementation with another at a later time.
you can unit test your controller when needed.
As of controller itself, let it have 2 constructors: one with an abstract domain access class (e.g. facade of domain), and another (empty) constructor which chooses the default implementation. This way your controller lives well during web application run-time (calling empty constructor) and during the unit-testing (with mock domain layer injected).
Also, to be able to easily switch to another domain at a later time, be sure to inject the domain creator, instead of domain itself. This way, localizing the domain layer construction to the domain creator, you can switch to another implementation at any time, by just reconstructing the domain creator (by creator I mean some kind of factory).
I hope this helps.
Addition:
I would not recommend having CRUD methods in domain layer, because this will become a nightmare whenever you rich the unit-testing phase, or even more, when you need to change the implementation to the new one at a later time.
It really comes down to where you want your code. If you need to have data access for an object you can put it behind an IRepository object or in the controller doesn't matter: you will still wind up with either a series of GetByXXX calls or the equivilent code. Either way you can lazy load and control the lifetime of the connection. So now you need to ask yourself: where do I want my code to live?
Personally, I would argue to get it out of the controller. By that I mean moving it to another layer. Probably using an IRespository type of pattern where you have a series of GetByXXX calls. Sure they are ugly. Wrong? I would argue otherwise. At least they are all contained within the same logical layer together rather than being scattered throughout the controllers where they are mixed in with validation code, etc.
Something on my mind about structuring a system at a high level.
Let's say you have a system with the following layers:
UI
Service Layer
Domain Model
Data Access
The service layer is used to populate a graph of objects in the domain model. In an attempt to avoid coupling, the domain model will be not be persistence aware and will not have any dependencies on any data access layer.
However, using this approach how would one object in the domain model be able to call other objects without being able to load them with persistence, thus coupling everything together - which I'd be trying to avoid.
e.g. an Order Object would need to check an Inventory object and would obviously need to tell the Inventory object to load in some way, or populate it somehow.
Any thoughts?
You could inject any dependencies from the service layer, including populated object graphs.
I would also add that a repository can be a dependency - if you have declared an interface for the repository, you can code to it without adding any coupling.
One way of doing this is to have a mapping layer between the Data Layer and the domain model.
Have a look at the mapping, repository and facade patterns.
The basic idea is that on one side you have data access objects and on the other you have domain objects.
To decouple you have to: "Program to an 'interface', not an 'implementation'." (Gang of Four 1995:18)
Here are some links on the subject:
Gamma interview on patterns
Random blog article
Googling for "Program to an interface, not an implementation" will yield many useful resources.
Have the domain model layer define interfaces for the methods you'll need to call, and POCOs for the objects that need to be returned by those methods. The data layer can then implement those interfaces by pulling data out of your data store and mapping it into the domain model POCOs.
Any domain-level class that requires a particular data-access service can just depend on the interface via constructor arguments. Then you can leverage a dependency-injection framework to build the dependency graph and provide the correct implementations of your interfaces wherever they are required.
Before writing tons of code in order to separate everything you might want to ask yourself a few questions:
Is the Domain Model truly separate from the DAL? And yes, I'm serious and you should think about this because it is exceedingly rare for an RDBMS to actually be swapped out in favor of a different one for an existing project. Quite frankly it is much more common for the language the app was written in to be replaced than the database itself.
What exactly is this separation buying you? And, just as important, what are you losing? Separation of Concerns (SoC) is a nice term that is thrown about quite a bit. However, most people rarely understand why they are Concerned with the Separation to begin with.
I bring these up because more often than not applications can benefit from a tighter coupling to the underlying data model. Never mind that most ORM's almost enforce a tight coupling due to the nature of code generation. I've seen lot's of supposedly SoC projects come to a crash during testing because someone added a field to a table and the DAL wasn't regenerated... This kind of defeats the purpose, IMHO...
Another factor is where should the business logic live? No doubt there are strong arguments in favor of putting large swaths of BL in the actual database itself. At the same time there are cases where the BL needs to live in or very near your domain classes. With BL spread in such a way, can you truly separate these two items anyway? Even those who hate the idea of putting BL in a database will fall back on using identity keys and letting the DB enforce referential integrity, which is also business logic..
Without knowing more, I would suggest you consider flattening the Data Access and Domain Model layers. You could move to a "provider" or "factory" type architecture in which the service layer itself doesn't care about the underlying access, but the factory handles it all. Just some radical food for thought.
You should take a look at Martin Fowler's Repository and UnitOfWork patterns to use interfaces in your system
Until now I have seen that application can be well layered into three layers: Presentation-->Logic-->Data--and Entities (or Bussines Object). In the Logic Layer case you can use some pattern such as Transaction Script or Domain Model I'm supposing you're using this last. The domain model can use a Data Mapper for interacting with the data layer and create business objects, but you can also use a Table Module pattern.
All this patterns are described in Marttin's Fowler Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture book. Personally I use Transaction Script because it is simplest than Domanin Model.
One solution is to make your Data Access layer subclass your domain entities (using Castle DynamicProxy, for example) and inject itself into the derived instances that it returns.
That way, your domain entity classes remain persistence-ignorant while the instances your applications use can still hit databases to lazy-load secondary data.
Having said that, this approach typically requires you to make a few concessions to your ORM's architecture, like marking certain methods virtual, adding otherwise unnecessary default constructors, etc..
Moreover, it's often unnecessary - especially for line-of-business applications that don't have onerous performance requirements, you can consider eagerly loading all the relevant data: just bring the inventory items up with the order.
I felt this was different enough from my previous answer, so here's a new one.
Another approach is to leverage the concept of Inversion of Control (IoC). Build an Interface that your Data Access layer implements. Each of the DAL methods should take a list of parameters and return a Data Table.
The service layer would instantiate the DAL through the interface and pass that reference to your Domain Model. The domain model would then make it's own calls into the DAL, using the interface methods, and decide when it needs to load child objects or whatever.
Something like:
interface IDBModel {
DataTable LoadUser(Int32 userId);
}
class MyDbModel : IDBModel {
DataTable LoadUser(Int32 userId) {
// make the appropriate DB calls here, return a data table
}
}
class User {
public User(IDBModel dbModel, Int32 userId) {
DataTable data = dbModel.LoadUser(userId);
// assign properties.. load any additional data as necessary
}
// You can do cool things like call User.Save()
// and have the object validate and save itself to the passed in
// datamodel. Makes for simpler coding.
}
class MyServiceLayer {
public User GetUser(Int32 userId) {
IDBModel model = new MyDbModel();
return new User(model, userId);
}
}
With this mechanism, you can actually swap out your db models on demand. For example, if you decide to support multiple databases then you can have code that is specific to a particular database vendors way of doing things and just have the service layer pick which one to use.
The domain objects themselves are responsible for loading their own data and you can keep any necessary business logic within the domain model. Another point is that the Domain Model doesn't have a direct dependency on the data layer, which preserves your mocking ability for independent testing of business logic.
Further, the DAL has no knowledge of the domain objects, so you can swap those out as necessary or even just test the DAL independently.