so I'm learning about the axon framework and just want to solidify my understanding of the #TargetAggregateIdentifier annotation.
My Command:
public class IssueCardCommand {
private String cardId;
private String versionNumber;
private Integer amount;
#TargetAggregateIdentifier
private String getAggregateIdentifier() {
return (null != versionNumber) ? cardId + "V" + versionNumber : cardId;
}
}
My Aggregate:
#Aggregate
#Slf4j
public class GiftCard {
private String giftCardId;
private String versionNumber;
private Integer amount;
#AggregateIdentifier
private String getAggregateIdentifier() {
return (null != versionNumber) ? giftCardId + "V" + versionNumber : giftCardId;
}
public GiftCard() {
log.info("empty noargs constructor");
}
#CommandHandler
public GiftCard(IssueCardCommand cmd) {
log.info("handling {}",cmd);
//this.giftCardId = cmd.getCardId();
//this.versionNumber = cmd.getVersionNumber();
apply(new CardIssuedEvent(cmd.getCardId(),cmd.getVersionNumber(),cmd.getAmount()));
}
#EventSourcingHandler
public void onCardIssuedEvent(CardIssuedEvent evt) {
log.info("applying {}",evt);
this.giftCardId = evt.getCardId();
this.versionNumber = evt.getVersionNumber();
this.amount = evt.getAmount();
}
}
So this all works as expected and the events are being stored correctly. However, I just want to make sure that I understand the #TargetAggregateIdentifier & #AggregateIdentifier annotations correctly.
So, the
#TargetAggregateIdentifier - a command goes to a specific instance of the aggregate and so it is needed to tell the framework which instance it is, so this annotation on a field/method is used to load the events for that particular aggregate?
I noticed that when I didn't have #TargetAggregateIdentifier in the command for the constructor, the code still works. But if it was missing from any subsequent commands it gave the error 'Invalid command, It does not identify the target aggregate', which I feel like confirmed my understanding above?
#AggregateIdentifier - this tells the axon framework that this is the identifier, so that when more commands are introduced it will need to store the events for that particular aggregate?
I would really appreciate it if someone could point out if my understanding is correct and comment where it isn't, so that I can use the framework in the correct way.
Thanks.
I already provided an answer on AxonIQ's discuss platform where the question was originally posted.
Since answering with a link only goes against SO's etiquette I'm coping my answer here too:
Your understanding is correct I guess. But let me give you a
simplified explanation of the process so you can compare it to your
current understanding.
When you issue a command that creates new aggregate (one that is
handled by the Aggregate's constructor) there is no need for
identifier. The reason is you are creating a new instance, not loading
an existing one. In that case the framework only needs the FQCN of the
aggregate in order to create an instance of it. It can easily find
the FQCN because it knows (from inspection during aggregate
registration) which aggregate can handle such create command. That's
why create commands without #TargetAggregateIdentifier work just
fine.
Once the create command is processed the aggregate's state needs to be
stored somewhere.
for event sourced aggregates all state changing events are stored in a event store
for state stored aggregates the entire state is stored in a repository
In both cases the framework needs to know how to identify this data.
That's what #AggregateIdentifier is for. It tells the framework to
store the data in way that it is identifiable by specific identifier.
You can think of it as primary key in DB terms.
When you send a command to an existing instance of an aggregate you
need to tell which instance that is. You do so by providing a
#TargetAggregateIdentifier . The framework will then create a new
empty instance of the respective aggregate and then try to load the
data into it
for event sourced aggregates by reading all the past events related to that instance
for state stored aggregates by reading current state from a repository
In both cases the framework will search for data that's identifiable
by the value of #TargetAggregateIdentifier. Once the aggregate data
is loaded it will proceed with handling the command.
Related
Let me say, I have come to the conclusion (after a lot of trial) that Repository & Unit of Work when using Entity Framework is just wrong, wrong, wrong and this says why quite well.
But I really hate on those embedded queries. Question is, where can I put them instead if I'm so against a repository, etc? (clean answers only please, examples much appreciated).
I just nuked two projects containing my repositories, unit of work and interfaces with hundreds of files because the payback was nowhere to be seen. I think lots of people, myself included, just jumped on the Repository bandwagon because that's what everybody else was doing but in retrospect, I think it's really a ride to nowhere.
/sigh
Richard
Where do you expect to put them? You have only few choices:
Let them be where they are and use custom extension methods, query views, mapped database views or custom defining queries to define reusable parts
Expose every single query as method on some separate class. The method mustn't expose IQueryable and mustn't accept Expression as parameter = whole query logic must be wrapped in the method. But this will make your class covering related methods much like repository (the only one which can be mocked or faked). This implementation is close to implementation used with stored procedures.
You will do the same as in previous method but instead of placing queries in separate class you will put them as static methods to entity directly. This is much worse testable because static methods cannot be replaced by mocking (it requires more complex testing framework). This is part of active record pattern where each entity is responsible for its loading and saving to database.
Example of custom extension method:
public static IQueryable<TEntity> GetByName(this IQueryalbe<TEntity> query, string name)
where TEntity : IEntityWithName
{
return query.Where(e => e.Name == name);
}
Example of custom class exposing methods:
public class QueryProvider
{
public QueryProvider() {}
public IEnumerable<TEntity> GetByName(IYourContext context, string name)
where TEntity : IEntityWithName
{
return context.CreateObjectSet<TEntity>().Where(e => e.Name == name).ToList();
}
}
Build Reusable, Testable Queries Part 1
This is a blog post I wrote about building reusable queries. Using Extension Methods allows you to build composable queries.
using a pattern like the specification pattern can help you build queries that can be reused or saved (serialized). Further more if you have a double entry system you can execute the same query instance over two different databases.
the following example does not use EF but replace the IEnumerable by an EF context and you get what ou are looking for. parameters are passed in through the constructor.
public class PartialMatchQuery : IModelQuery<string, IEnumerable<string>>
{
private readonly string partial;
public PartialMatchQuery(string partialString)
{
partial = partialString;
}
public IEnumerable<string> Execute(IEnumerable<string> model)
{
return model.Where(s => s.ToLower().Contains(partial));
}
}
I'm working with a database where the designers decided to mark every table with a IsHistorical bit column. There is no consideration for proper modeling and there is no way I can change the schema.
This is causing some friction when developing CRUD screens that interact with navigation properties. I cannot simply take a Product and then edit its EntityCollection I have to manually write IsHistorical checks all over the place and its driving me mad.
Additions are also horrible because so far I've written all manual checks to see if an addition is just soft deleted so instead of adding a duplicate entity I can just toggle IsHistoric.
The three options I've considered are:
Modifying the t4 templates to include IsHistorical checks and synchronization.
Intercept deletions and additions in the ObjectContext, toggle the IsHistorical column, and then synch the object state.
Subscribe to the AssociationChanged event and toggle the IsHistorical column there.
Does anybody have any experience with this or could recommend the most painless approach?
Note: Yes, I know, this is bad modeling. I've read the same articles about soft deletes that you have. It stinks I have to deal with this requirement but I do. I just want the most painless method of dealing with soft deletes without writing the same code for every navigation property in my database.
Note #2 LukeLed's answer is technically correct although forces you into a really bad poor mans ORM, graph-less, pattern. The problem lies in the fact that now I'm required to rip out all the "deleted" objects from the graph and then call the Delete method over each one. Thats not really going to save me that much manual ceremonial coding. Instead of writing manual IsHistoric checks now I'm gathering deleted objects and looping through them.
I am using generic repository in my code. You could do it like:
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : EntityObject
{
public void Delete(T obj)
{
if (obj is ISoftDelete)
((ISoftDelete)obj).IsHistorical = true
else
_ctx.DeleteObject(obj);
}
Your List() method would filter by IsHistorical too.
EDIT:
ISoftDelete interface:
public interface ISoftDelete
{
bool IsHistorical { get; set; }
}
Entity classes can be easily marked as ISoftDelete, because they are partial. Partial class definition needs to be added in separate file:
public partial class MyClass : EntityObject, ISoftDelete
{
}
As I'm sure you're aware, there is not going to be a great solution to this problem when you cannot modify the schema. Given that you don't like the Repository option (though, I wonder if you're not being just a bit hasty to dismiss it), here's the best I can come up with:
Handle ObjectContext.SavingChanges
When that event fires, trawl through the ObjectStateManager looking for objects in the deleted state. If they have an IsHistorical property, set that, and changed the state of the object to modified.
This could get tricky when it comes to associations/relationships, but I think it more or less does what you want.
I use the repository pattern also with similar code to LukLed's, but I use reflection to see if the IsHistorical property is there (since it's an agreed upon naming convention):
public class Repository<TEntityModel> where TEntityModel : EntityObject, new()
{
public void Delete(TEntityModel entity)
{
// see if the object has an "IsHistorical" flag
if (typeof(TEntityModel).GetProperty("IsHistorical") != null);
{
// perform soft delete
var historicalProperty = entity.GetType().GetProperty("IsHistorical");
historicalProperty.SetValue(entity, true, null);
}
else
{
// perform real delete
EntityContext.DeleteObject(entity);
}
EntityContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
Usage is then simply:
using (var fubarRepository = new Repository<Fubar>)
{
fubarRepository.Delete(someFubar);
}
Of course, in practice, you extend this to allow deletes by passing PK instead of an instantiated entity, etc.
This is pretty basic, but sort of a generic issue so I want to hear what people's thoughts are. I have a situation where I need to take an existing MSI file and update it with a few standard modifications and spit out a new MSI file (duplication of old file with changes).
I started writing this with a few public methods and a basic input path for the original MSI. The thing is, for this to work properly, a strict path of calls has to be followed from the caller:
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath);
custom.Duplicate(targetmsipath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath);
Would it be better to put all the conversion logic as part of the constructor instead of making them available as public methods? (in order to avoid having the caller have to know what the "proper order" is):
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath, targetmsipath); // saves converted msi
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath); // saves optional xml for sms
The constructor would then directly duplicate the MSI file, upgrade it and save it to the target location. The "WriteSmsXmlFile is still a public method since it is not always required.
Personally I don't like to have the constructor actually "do stuff" - I prefer to be able to call public methods, but it seems wrong to assume that the caller should know the proper order of calls?
An alternative would be to duplicate the file first, and then pass the duplicated file to the constructor - but it seems better to have the class do this on its own.
Maybe I got it all backwards and need two classes instead: SourcePackage, TargetPackage and pass the SourcePackage into the constructor of the TargetPackage?
I'd go with your first thought: put all of the conversion logic into one place. No reason to expose that sequence to users.
Incidentally, I agree with you about not putting actions into a constructor. I'd probably not do this in the constructor, and instead do it in a separate converter method, but that's personal taste.
It may be just me, but the thought of a constructor doing all these things makes me shiver. But why not provide a static method, which does all this:
public class CustomPackage
{
private CustomPackage(String sourcePath)
{
...
}
public static CustomPackage Create(String sourcePath, String targetPath)
{
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcePath);
custom.Duplicate(targetPath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
return custom;
}
}
The actual advantage of this method is, that you won't have to give out an instance of CustomPackage unless the conversion process actually succeeded (safe of the optional parts).
Edit In C#, this factory method can even be used (by using delegates) as a "true" factory according to the Factory Pattern:
public interface ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class CustomPackage: ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class Consumer
{
public delegate ICustomizedPackage Factory(String,String);
private Factory factory;
public Consumer(Factory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
private ICustomizedPackage CreatePackage()
{
return factory.Invoke(..., ...);
}
...
}
and later:
new Consumer(CustomPackage.Create);
You're right to think that the constructor shouldn't do any more work than to simply initialize the object.
Sounds to me like what you need is a Convert(targetmsipath) function that wraps the calls to Duplicate, Upgrade and Save, thereby removing the need for the caller to know the correct order of operations, while at the same time keeping the logic out of the constructor.
You can also overload it to include a targetxmlpath parameter that, when supplied, also calls the WriteSmsXmlFile function. That way all the related operations are called from the same function on the caller's side and the order of operations is always correct.
In such situations I typicaly use the following design:
var task = new Task(src, dst); // required params goes to constructor
task.Progress = ProgressHandler; // optional params setup
task.Run();
I think there are service-oriented ways and object-oritented ways.
The service-oriented way would be to create series of filters that passes along an immutable data transfer object (entity).
var service1 = new Msi1Service();
var msi1 = service1.ReadFromFile(sourceMsiPath);
var service2 = new MsiCustomService();
var msi2 = service2.Convert(msi1);
service2.WriteToFile(msi2, targetMsiPath);
service2.WriteSmsXmlFile(msi2, targetXmlPath);
The object-oriented ways can use decorator pattern.
var decoratedMsi = new CustomMsiDecorator(new MsiFile(sourceMsiPath));
decoratedMsi.WriteToFile(targetMsiPath);
decoratedMsi.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetXmlPath);
I'm aware there is an AssociationChanged event, however, this event fires after the association is made. There is no AssociationChanging event. So, if I want to throw an exception for some validation reason, how do I do this and get back to my original value?
Also, I would like to default values for my entity based on information from other entities but do this only when I know the entitiy is instanced for insertion into the database. How do I tell the difference between that and the object getting instanced because it is about to be populated based on existing data? Am I supposed to know? Is that considiered business logic that should be outside of my entity business logic?
If that's the case, then should I be designing controller classes to wrap all these entities? My concern is that if I deliver back an entity, I want the client to get access to the properties, but I want to retain tight control over validations on how they are set, defaulted, etc. Every example I've seen references context, which is outside of my enity partial class validation, right?
BTW, I looked at the EFPocoAdapter and for the life of me cannot determine how to populate lists of from within my POCO class... anyone know how I get to the context from a EFPoco Class?
This is in reply to a comment I left. Hopefully this answers your question, Shimmy. Just comment, and I will shorten it or remove it if it doesn't answer your question.
You will need both INotifyPropertyChanging and INotifyPropertyChanged interfaces to be implemented on your class (unless it is something like an entity framework object, which I believe implements these internally).
And before you set a value to this property, you will need to raise NotifyPropertyChanging.PropertyChanging event, using the name of the property in PropertyChangingEventArgs constructor.
And after you set this value you need to raise NofityPropertyChanged.PropertyChanged event, again using the name of the property this is being raised in PropertyChangedEventArgs constructor.
Then you have to handle the PropertyChanging and PropertyChanged events. In the PropertyChanging event, you need to cache the value. In the PropertyChanged event, you can compare and throw an exception.
To get the property from PropertyChanging/PropertyChanged event args, you need to use relfection.
// PropertyName is the key, and the PropertyValue is the value.
Dictionary <string, object> propertyDict = new Dictionary<object, object>();
// Convert this function prototype to C# from VBNet. I like how Handles is descriptive.
Public Sub PropertyChanging(sender As object, e As PropertyChangingEventArgs) Handles Foo.PropertyChanging
{
if (sender == null || preventRecursion)
{
return;
} // End if
Type senderType = sender.GetType();
PropertyInfo info = senderType.GetProperty(e.PropertyName);
object propertyValue = info.GetValue(sender, null);
// Change this so it checks if e.PropertyName already exists.
propertyDict.Add(e.PropertyName, propertyValue);
} // End PropertyChanging() Event
// Convert this function prototype to C# from VBNet. I like how Handles is descriptive.
Public Sub PropertyChanged(sender As object, e As PropertyChangedEventArgs) Handles Foo.PropertyChanged
{
if (sender == null || preventRecursion)
{
return;
} // End if
Type senderType = sender.GetType();
PropertyInfo info = senderType.GetProperty(e.PropertyName);
object propertyValue = info.GetValue(sender, null);
// Change this so it makes sure e.PropertyName exists.
object oldValue = propertyDict(e.PropertyName);
object newValue = propertyValue;
// No longer needed.
propertyDict.Remove(e.PropertyName);
if (/* some condition */)
{
try {
preventRecursion = true;
info.SetValue(oldValue, null);
Throw New Exception();
} finally {
preventRecursion = false;
} // End try
} // End if
} // End PropertyChanging() Event
Notice how I am using PreventRecursion, which is a boolean I forgot to add above these methods? When you reset the property back to its previous value, these events will be recalled.
tl;dr
Now you could derive a single event which inherits from INotifyPropertyChanged, but uses an argument which holds an Object representing the previous value as well as the Property Name. And that would reduce the number of events being fired down to one, have similar functionality, and have backwards compatibility with INotifyPropertyChanged.
But if you want to handle anything before the property gets set (say the property does an irreversible change or you need to setup other properties before setting that variable, otherwise an exception will be thrown) you won't be able to do that.
Overall, this method is a very old way of doing things. I would take Poker Villian's answer and have invalid data able to be entered. But disallow saving to a database.
Entity Framework has some excellent code towards validation. You add validation to your properties via attributes. And then it takes care of the work of processing those attributes. Then you can make a property called IsValid, which calls Entity Framework specific validation. It also distinguishes both field errors (like typing in the wrong characters or having a string too long), and class errors (like having missing data or conflicting keys).
Then you can bind IsValid to controls validation, and they will display a red bubble while invalid data is entered. Or you could just implement IsValid validation yourself. But If IsValid is false, SaveChanges event would need to cancel saving.
btw. The code provided will not compile and is pseudocode only (mixing vb and c#). But I believe it is much more descriptive than c# alone--showing exactly what is being handled.
Concerning your first question, I would simply implement the changes to the associations as business logic. For example, if you add a Teacher class with multiple Student, do not add students like
aTeacher.Students.Add(new Student)
instead, create a AddStudent method
public Student AddNewStudent(string name, string studentID)
{
Student s = new Student( name, studentID);
s.Teacher = this; // changes the association
return s;
}
That way you have full control on when associations are changed. Of course that what prevents another programmer from adding a student directly? On the Student side, you can set the Teacher setter to private (and change the constructor to accept a teacher or similar). On the teacher side, how to make the Students collection non-insertable? I'm not certain... maybe transforming it in a custom collection that doesn't accept inserts.
Concerning the second part of your question, you could probably use the OnVarNameChanging events. If the EntityState is 'New' then you can apply your logic that fetches the real values.
There is also an event that fires when you save changes (OnSavingChanges?) that you could use to determine which objects are new and set some values.
But maybe the simplest solution is to always set the defaults in the constructor and they will get overwritten if the data is loaded from the DB.
Good luck
Create a factory that produces instances for you depending on your need like:
getStudent(String studentName, long studentId, Teacher teacher) {
return new Student(studentName, studentId);
}
getStudentForDBInseration(String studentName, long studentId, Teacher teacher) {
Student student = getStudent(studentName, studentId);
student = teacher;
//some entity frameworks need the student to be in the teachers student list
//so you might need to add the student to the teachers student list
teacher.addStudent(student);
}
It's a serious lack not having an AssociationChanging (that inherits from CancelEventArgs) event.
It bothers me also very much, therefore I reported this to Microsoft Connect Please vote here!
And BTW, I also think this is also stupid that the PropertyChangingEventArgs doesn't inherit CancelEventArgs, since cancelling with an exception is not always the elegant solution, besides, throwing exceptions cost more performance than calling the OnPropertyChangingEvent then check for the returned e.Cancel, so does it cost less than raising the PropertyChangingEvent, which you anyway call them both.
Also an exception can be thrown at the handler anyway instead of marking e.Cancel as true, for those who insist to go the Exception way. Vote Here.
To maybe answer part of your question or expound on ADB's answer you can user ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry to find the state of the entities and write your custom default logic.
SaveChanges is the method on the context that you can use, or SavingChanges is the event that occurs before SaveChanges is called.
You can override SaveChanges and only call base.SaveChanges if you don't want to abort the change
There is also a ObjectMaterialized event for the context.
Between the two you can stick all your validation and creation code in one location, which may be appropriate if they are complex and include values of other objects etc..
I have an ADO.Net Data Service that I am using to do a data import. There are a number of entities that are linked to by most entities. To do that during import I create those entities first, save them and then use .SetLink(EntityImport, "NavigationProperty", CreatedEntity). Now the first issue that I ran into was that the context did not always know about CreatedEntity (this is due to each of the entities being imported independently and a creation of a context as each item is created - I'd like to retain this functionality - i.e. I'm trying to avoid "just use one context" as the answer).
So I have a .AddToCreatedEntityType(CreatedEntity) before attempting to call SetLink. This of course works for the first time, but on the second pass I get the error message "the context is already tracking the entity".
Is there a way to check if the context is already tracking the entity (context.Contains(CreatedEntity) isn't yet implemented)? I was thinking about attempting a try catch and just avoiding the error, but that seems to create a new CreatedEntity each pass. It is looking like I need to use a LINQ to Data Services to get that CreatedEntity each time, but that seems innefficient - any suggestions?
I think you should look at the EntityState property of your entity.
Only if it is of the value EntityState.Detached than you have to add it to your context.
Do not forget the following remark:
This enumeration has a FlagsAttribute
attribute that allows a bitwise
combination of its member values.
I would create a extension method:
public static class EntityObjectExtensions
{
public static Boolean IsTracked(this EntityObject self)
{
return (self.EntityState & EntityState.Detached) != EntityState.Detached;
}
}
When trying to check whether the context was tracking the entity that I wanted to update (or add) I was pretty disapointed when I found that the context.Entites.Contains(currentItem) didn't work.
I got around it using:
if (context.Entities.Where(entities => entities.Entity == currentItem).Any())
{
this.service.UpdateObject(currentItem);
}