We Keep Coding

C# DDD - Domain Object Creation

I have started learning and creating CQRS with event sourcing using C#. I checked a lot of samples and in each sample, while constructing domain object all required domain fields are either passed using the constructor or a through a static method to create the domain object.
Should I pass the complete DTO to to the domain object to construct it instead of passing a long list of individual fields which I am getting from my top layer?
public class Student : AggregateRoot
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
// Without ID and Name a domain object should not be created
//Can I write like this?
public Student(StudentDto studentDto)
{
ID = studentDto.ID;
Name = studentDto.Name;
}
//Can I write like this?
public Student(int id,string name)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
}
}

DTO is the wrong thing to use here. You are introducing an undesirable linkage between DTO's and domain objects and they evolve differently. You can imagine that domain objects may evolve to take more arguments or DTO's will need more properties.
In general, you should pass the explicit fields domain object needs in its constructor. If you end up having a long list of constructor arguments, either the domain object may be having too many resonsibilities, or you can use the Builder pattern to reduce number of explicit arguments needed.

I think this is one way to approach DDD persistence problem.
See https://vaughnvernon.co/?p=879, V. Vernon does the same thing.

C# + MongoDB - ObjectId without using MongoDB DataTypes/Attributes

Using MongoDB as my data store makes me to have ObjectID type as primary key by Default. It also can be changed by using Guid with [BsonId] attribute. Which is also defined in MongoDB C# Driver library. I would like to have my Entities independent from Data layer.
Can I just use name Id for the property to identify primary key? What else I can try?

You can use BsonClassMap instead of using attributes to keep your classes "clean".
// 'clean' entity with no mongo attributes
public class MyClass
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
}
// mappings in data layer
BsonClassMap.RegisterClassMap<MyClass>(cm =>
{
cm.AutoMap();
cm.MapIdMember(c => c.Id).SetIdGenerator(CombGuidGenerator.Instance);
});

OPTION 1: Stick with BsonId and use the Facade Pattern
The [BsonId] property is what you'd use to indicate that the _id property should be linked to a specific property. There isn't a way around that (short of ignoring _id entirely in your crud operations which seems like a bad idea).
So, if you want to separate your "entity" object from your "data layer" then just use a poco class.
-- Use a poco class as a substitute for a record. That class is only for data storage: a quick way to get data in/out of mongo, and a great alternative to working with bson documents.
-- Use a facade on top of that poco class for your entity layer. I don't find it useful to re-invent the wheel, so I typically ask our devs have the entity interface inherit the data-layer (poco) interface, but you can do it however you'd like
Breaking up a sample MyObject class
IMyObjectRecord (declared at the dal and contains only properties and mongo-specific attributes)
IMyObject:IMyObjectRecord (declared at the entity level and may include added properties and methods)
MyObjectRecord:IMyObjectRecord (declared inside the dal, contains mongo-specific attributes. Could be declared internal if you wanted to be really strict about separation).
MyObject:IMyObject (could be, for example, a facade on top of the IMyObjectRecord class you pull from the dal).
Now - you get all the benefits of the facade, and you have a hard-coded link between the properties BUT, you get to keep Bson attributes contained in your dal.
OK, fine. But I really really really HATE that answer.
Yeah. I can accept that. OK, so how about a Convention Pack? If you ABSOLUTELY PROMISE that you'll call your Id's "Id" and you SWEAR that you'll type them as strings (or -- use some other convention that is easy to identify), then we could just use a convention pack like the one I stole from here
namespace ConsoleApp {
class Program {
private class Foo {
// Look Ma! No attributes!
public string Id { get; set; }
public string OtherProperty { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
//you would typically do this in the singleton routine you use
//to create your dbClient, so you only do it the one time.
var pack = new ConventionPack();
pack.Add(new StringObjectIdConvention());
ConventionRegistry.Register("MyConventions", pack, _ => true);
// Note that we registered that before creating our client...
var client = new MongoClient();
//now, use that client to create collections
var testDb = client.GetDatabase("test");
var fooCol = testDb.GetCollection<Foo>("foo");
fooCol.InsertOne(new Foo() { OtherProperty = "Testing", Id="TEST" });
var foundFoo = fooCol.Find(x => x.OtherProperty == "Testing").ToList()[0];
Console.WriteLine("foundFooId: " + foundFoo.Id);
}
//obviously, this belongs in that singleton namespace where
//you're getting your db client.
private class StringObjectIdConvention : ConventionBase, IPostProcessingConvention {
public void PostProcess(BsonClassMap classMap) {
var idMap = classMap.IdMemberMap;
if (idMap != null && idMap.MemberName == "Id" && idMap.MemberType == typeof(string)) {
idMap.SetIdGenerator(new StringObjectIdGenerator());
}
}
}
}
}
What's a Convention Pack
It's a little set of mongo "rules" that get applied during serialize/deserialize. You register it once (when you setup your engine). In this case, the sample pack is telling mongo "if you see a field called 'Id', then save it as a string to _id, please."
These can get really complex and fun. I'd dig into convention packs if you really really really hate the other approach. It's a good way to force all your mongo "attribute driven" logic into one self-contained location.

I have stumbled on the same problem myself, and I didn't want to have mongo attributes inside my classes.
I have created a small wrapper example to show how I save and find elements without having an Id property on the data classes of my business logic.
The wrapper class:
public static class Extensions
{
public static T Unwrap<T>(this MongoObject<T> t)
{
return t.Element;
}
}
public class MongoObject<T>
{
[BsonId]
private ObjectId _objectId;
public T Element { get; }
public MongoObject(T element)
{
Element = element;
_objectId = new ObjectId();
}
}
I have also added an extension method to easily unwrap.
Saving an element is simple
public void Save<T>(T t)
{
_collection.InsertOne(new MongoObject<T>(t));
}
To find an element we can do a linq-like query:
Say we have a data class:
public class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
then we can find such an element by
public Person FindPersonByName(string name)
{
return _collection.AsQueryable().FirstOrDefault(
personObject => personObject.Element.Name == name).Unwrap();
}
We can also generalize by making MongoObject implement IQueryable<T> and this would make the use of the wrapper even more convenient

If i understand correctly. You want to put your entity to other layer without attribute.
I think you can try this
public object Id { get; set; }
after that you can put your Id which is coming from mongodb without attribute

Optional validation dependent upon parameters

I have a 'Validator' class that needs to do some simple validation. However, there are some instances where all or just a single method may need to be called.
The interface for the validator is defined as:
internal interface IBrandValidator
{
BrandInfo ValidateBrands();
}
The class definition for the object being returned:
internal class BrandInfo
{
public Organisation Brand { get; set; }
public Client Client { get; set; }
public Location Location { get; set; }
public Language Language { get; set; }
}
The class that implements this interface:
internal class ClientValidator : IBrandValidator
{
private readonly int? clientId;
private readonly int? locationId;
private readonly int? languageId;
public ClientValidator(int clientId, int? locationId, int? languageId)
{
this.clientId = clientId;
this.locationId = locationId;
this.languageId = languageId;
}
public BrandInfo ValidateBrandDimensions()
{
var brandInfo= new BrandInfo();
//Optional validation
if(client != null)
brandDimensions.Client = ValidateClient(clientId);
if(locationId != null)
brandDimensions.Location = ValidateLocation(locationId);
if(languageId != null)
brandDimensions.Language = ValidateLanguage(languageId);
return brandInfo;
}
}
My question is. The 3 validation methods under the comment 'Optional Validation'. May or may not need to be called. However, there may be additional things I need to validate in future and using the nullable int with the if statement is a bad route.
Is there a design pattern I can implement to achieve something similar?

Your code is hardly predictable by reading for example:
brandDimensions.Client = ValidateClient(clientId);
ValidateClient should return truthy or falsy object. But is assigned to an Object with name "Client".
Your validator returns an BrandInfo Object. But does not include any property or method which indicates if it is valid or not ?!?
The ClientValidator does not have to validate for a client - because it is nullable?
It think you should consider to reorganize part of your codes.
If a class creates many objects from an Identifier you could probably use the Factory Pattern.
If you want to validate a complex object name it after ComplexObjectValidator.
Every part of the complex object gets validated.
If it is valid that for example an Id is nullable put that check in the Validator Implementation.
It is hard to tell more specifics because it is unclear what your code does or intends to do.
Edit:
As rule of thumb:
Truthy or falsy Methods: Prefix with "Is" "Must" "Should" "Has" "Can" etc.
If a method should return an Object: "GetValidatedClient" "ValidateAndReturnClient" "CreateClient"
So someone reading your code which can be you in the future (6 months, 3 years, 10 years) can just infer the behaviour from your function names.
ValidateClient would imply that it is just Validating. More specifically it just returns void. Because it just Validates. If it returns truthy or falsy values use one of the prefixes listed above. If it returns an Validator Object use "GetValidationResultFor(xyz)" for example.

Factory pattern with a class that can has different class sub types

I have data from multiple organisations (police, fire, office) that need output in different formats.
To achieve this, I defined the following (this is a little simplified):
Transaction class -
"Success" indicator - Boolean.
"Type of department"- String or Enum.
A class which can be of any type - Police, Fire or Office (My question is on this as you will see).
A GenerateOutput() method - to handle generation of file formats.
Police class
Age - String
VehicleNumber - Integer
Supervisor - String
Fire class
Name - String
FireEngineNumber - Integer
County - Enum
WorkTimings - Enum
Office Class
Age - String
DeskNumber - Integer
Department - String
PayScale - Enum
IsManagement - Bool
As you can see, the Police, Fire and Office classes dont share anything in common and are primarily intended as data carrying entities. I intend to use a Factory to return an appropriate generic (not a C# generic) Transaction object with the data (Transaction object with Police, Fire or Office data within it) and then pass the returned object to a Strategy pattern which determines the file format (CSV, Excel, or XML; specified in a configuration file) each one needs.
My problem is in the definition of the Transaction object.
What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be? The data for each org differs, there are no common members, I am unable to define a common class for all.
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
Based on Peter's comments below:
I think using generics might work, I ran into a problem though. I would like to use a factory to return the object requested, using GetTransactionObject, as below. What should be the return type of GetTransactionObject to accomodate this.
class TransactionFactory
{
Dictionary<string, Type> typeClassLookup;
public TransactionFactory()
{
typeClassLookup = new Dictionary<string, Type>();
typeClassLookup.Add("Police", typeof(PoliceData));
typeClassLookup.Add("Fire", typeof(FireData));
}
Transaction<????> GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;

If the types really have nothing in common, then you need no explicit base class. System.Object suffices, just as with many other generic types (i.e. any generic type lacking a constraint).
In other words, you could declare as:
class Transaction<T>
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { /* something goes here */ }
}
Personally, I would avoid adding a "department type" member. After all, that's implicit from the type parameter T. But you could add that easily to the above if you want.
If and when you find that the types do have something in common, such that your Transaction<T> type needs to do more than simply hold onto an instance of one of those types (which is about all it can do without a constraint), then you will be able to put that commonality into an interface or base class (depending on the specific need), and specify that in a constraint for the Transaction<T> class.
Note that it's not clear what you mean for the GenerateOutput() to do, or how it should work. But assuming that you want output that is specific for each Entity value, it seems to me that that is your "something in common". I.e., it's not the Transaction<T> class at all that needs to implement that method, but rather each entity type. In that case, you have something like this:
interface IDepartmentEntity
{
void GenerateOutput();
}
class Office : IDepartmentEntity
{
public void GenerateOutput() { /* department-specific logic here */ }
}
// etc.
Then you can declare:
class Transaction<T> where T : IDepartmentEntity
{
public bool Success { get; private set; }
public T Entity { get; private set; }
public Transaction(bool success, T entity)
{
Success = success;
Entity = entity;
}
public void GenerateOutput() { Entity.GenerateOutput(); }
}
EDIT:
Per Prasant's follow-up edit, with a request for advice on the GetTransactionObject()…
The right way to do this depends on the caller and the context, a detail not provided in the question. IMHO, the best scenario is where the caller is aware of the type. This allows the full power of generics to be used.
For example:
class TransactionFactory
{
public Transaction<T> GetTransactionObject<T>()
where T : IDepartmentEntity, new()
{
return new Transaction<T>()
{
Data = new T(),
params = null
}
}
}
Then you call like this:
Transaction<FireData> transaction = factory.GetTransactionObject<FireData>();
The caller, of course already knowing the type it is creating, then can fill in the appropriate properties of the transaction.Data object.
If that approach is not possible, then you will need for Transaction<T> itself to have a base class, or implement an interface. Note that in my original example, the IDepartmentEntity interface has only one method, and it's the same as the GenerateOutput() method in the Transaction class.
So maybe, that interface is really about generating output instead of being a data entity. Call it, instead of IDepartmentEntity, something like IOutputGenerator.
In that case, you might have something like this:
class Transaction<T> : IOutputGenerator
{
// all as before
}
class TransactionFactory
{
public IOutputGenerator GetTransactionObject(string org)
{
if( typeClassLookup.TryGetValue(org, out typeValue))
{
switch (typeValue.ToString())
{
case "policeData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<PoliceData>() { Data = new PoliceData(), params = null};
case "FireData":
transactionObject = new Transaction<FireData>() {Data = new FireData(), params = null};
}
}
return transactionObject;
}
}
This is an inferior solution, as it means the caller can only directly access the IOutputGenerator functionality. Anything else requires doing some type-checking and special-case code, something that really ought to be avoided whenever possible.
Note: if the Transaction type has other members which, like the GenerateOutput() method, are independent of the contained type T here, and which would be useful to callers who don't know T, then a possible variation of the above is to not reuse the interface used for the department-specific data types, but instead declare a base class for Transaction<T>, named of course Transaction, containing all those members not related to T. Then the return value can be Transaction.

What type does the class in "3." of the Transaction class need to be?
To decouple your department classes from the various export types, I recommend you make the department classes implement a common interface. Something like this:
public interface Exportable {
// return a list of attribute names, values, and types to export
IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes();
}
For example:
public class Police : Exportable {
public IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> GetAttributes() {
// return list size 3 - attribute info for Age, VehicleNumber, Supervisor
}
}
Is the overall design appropriate? What other designs should I consider?
The Transaction class design doesn't seem well suited for this problem.
Consider an Export class with a method for each export type, each method which receives the attributes returned from the Exportable interface method. Basic outline:
public static class Export {
public static boolean CSV(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to CSV, return whether succeeded
}
public static boolean Excel(IList<Tuple<String, String, Type>> attributes) {
// export attributes to Excel, return whether succeeded
}
// same thing for XML
}

DDD: Enum like entities

I have the following DB model:
**Person table**
ID | Name | StateId
------------------------------
1 Joe 1
2 Peter 1
3 John 2
**State table**
ID | Desc
------------------------------
1 Working
2 Vacation
and domain model would be (simplified):
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public State State { get; set; }
}
public class State
{
private int id;
public string Name { get; set; }
}
The state might be used in the domain logic e.g.:
if(person.State == State.Working)
// some logic
So from my understanding, the State acts like a value object which is used for domain logic checks. But it also needs to be present in the DB model to represent a clean ERM.
So state might be extended to:
public class State
{
private int id;
public string Name { get; set; }
public static State New {get {return new State([hardCodedIdHere?], [hardCodeNameHere?]);}}
}
But using this approach the name of the state would be hardcoded into the domain.
Do you know what I mean? Is there a standard approach for such a thing? From my point of view what I am trying to do is using an object (which is persisted from the ERM design perspective) as a sort of value object within my domain. What do you think?
Question update:
Probably my question wasn't clear enough.
What I need to know is, how I would use an entity (like the State example) that is stored in a database within my domain logic. To avoid things like:
if(person.State.Id == State.Working.Id)
// some logic
or
if(person.State.Id == WORKING_ID)
// some logic

Your proposed structure seems fine. (Terminology digression: since State has an ID, it's not a Value Object, but rather an Entity.)
Enums are a code smell, so don't attempt to go that route. It's much more object-oriented to move the behavior into the State object using the State pattern.
Instead of having to write
if (person.State == State.Working)
// do something...
all over your code, this would allow you to write
person.State.DoSomething();
That's much cleaner, and will allow you to add new States if need be.

A previous question of mine unearthed some useful links that I suspect are pertinent to your question, in particular Jimmy Bogard's discussions of Enumeration Classes.

It's a common practice to include an 'Unknown' element with value 0 in an enum. You can do this and use it for the New state if you really want to.
But what you are describing is business logic... setting a state after creating a new object should then happen in the business logic layer, not inside the class itself.

You want to create a factory method that will instantiate the appropriate state class needed, based on the value stored.
something like
public static State GetStateByID( StateEnum value)
{
if(value.Invalid)
throw new Exception();
switch(value)
case State.Working
return new WorkingState();
case State.somethingelse
return new somethingelseState();
case State.something
return new somethingState();
case State.whatever
return new whateverState();
}
When using enums always try to use 0 as Invalid. Under the hood an enum is a value type, and an unassigned int is always 0.
It is common to use a factory, such as this, in conjunction with the state pattern.
So when you read your stored integer value from the database you can cast the int to the enum and call the factory with it to get the appropriate State object.

I personally think it's a mistake to program against IDs. Instead, I would amend your table to the following:
**State table**
ID | Desc | IsWorking | IsVacation
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 Working True False
2 Vacation False True
I would then use these attributes to make business decisions on such as:
public void MakeDecisionOnState(State state)
{
if (state.IsVacation)
DoSomething();
if (state.IsWorking)
DoSomethingElse();
}
Or by being even more clever, use the factory pattern to create the correct instance based on these attributes:
public abstract class State
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public abstract void DoSomething();
}
public class WorkingState : State
{
public override void DoSomething()
{
//Do something specific for the working state
}
}
public class VacationState : State
{
public override void DoSomething()
{
//Do something specific for the vacation state
}
}
public class StateFactory
{
public static State CreateState(IDataRecord record)
{
if (record.GetBoolean(2))
return new WorkingState { Id = record.GetGuid(0), Description = record.GetString(1) };
if (record.GetBoolean(3))
return new VacationState { Id = record.GetGuid(0), Description = record.GetString(1) };
throw new Exception("Data is screwed");
}
}
Now you've eliminated the if/switch statement, and your code could simply be:
state.DoSomething();
The reason why I do this is that often these types of entities can be configured by the customer, i.e. they may not want to have some of the states active in the system, or they may wish to term them something else. By programming against the attributes the customer can delete / edit the records as they please and even if that process generates new ID's it doesn't affect the system, they just need to set the attributes.

In my opion the domain layer has to be seperated from the DB model / ERM design. I had trouble understanding your final suggestion for the State class. IMHO this is not a good thing for establishing a common language which is one of the main purposes of DDD.
I would go for a simpler design. The state belongs to the Person class. I would include it in the class.
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public PersonState State { get; set; }
}
The state itself seems to have defined values (I assume a person is an employee in your context) which don't change very often. So I would model it as enum and treat it as a data type.
enum Days {Working, Vacation};
This is a simple to understand design in my opinion. The mapping to the ERM design belongs IMHO in the persistence layer. There the enum has to be mapped to the key of the state table. This could be done using an aspect to keep the original domain model clean.