I have a spring-boot app that exposes a REST api. I am using the repository pattern for ORM.
My question is about the proper way to handle persistent objects when I do not need them to be persistent.
Is detaching them good practice?
For example in one situation I might query the UserRepository and then query the BlahBlahBlahRepository, and then do some calculations on the objects and return a result.
However, I do not need those objects to persist and be monitored because they will not be changed. Do I need to be concerned about the overhead or is there something I can do besides calling detach on those objects.
Related
A current project needs us to persist domain objects in a NoSQL database such as mongoDB.
In many examples (incl. Eric Evans, Vaughn Vernon) the domain objects are serialized and persisted to the mongoDB directly.
We would like to avoid mixing the domain layer with persistence related inforamtion by not having any annotations in our domain objects.
Also we are concerned about corrupting the persisted data by changing the domain object in the future.
We came to the conclusion that we need to have some kind of DTOs translating between the domain objects and the persisted data.
Did anyone of you come across a good solution for such a case?
Yes. Your domain models should be ignorant of persistence. So you need a DTO or what I call data models (apart from the domain models and view models). Your data models will be map to the domain models before persisting to the database. This mapping is pretty common in insert and update operations. For read-only operations (reporting, etc) you can bypass the mapping from data models and to domain models. That will prevent loading the whole object graph of your domain models. This is widely applied in CQRS architecture patterns where read and write commands are separated.
Like you, I want business objects to have no dependency on any kind of specific repository. I solved it like this: That have your business object define its state objects and repository functions as interfaces. Your repository implementation can create an actual state object and inject that into your business object using the constructor.
There are a lot of advantages to this approach (such as having business objects for specific purposes), but you easily achieve complete (two-way) independence of your repository this way. Martin Fowler also hinted at this approach elsewhere.
I actually use the same pattern in my Angular / TypeScript projects. My read-api calls return DTO objects that get state objects injected as well and their properties map directly onto state objects.
These DTOs that end up as untyped javascript objects when they come from the api to the client (Angular) project are then in turn injected as state objects into TypeScript objects, injected in the constructor again and mapped by getters and setters. It works very cleanly and is well maintainable. I have an example on my GitHub (niwra) account (Software-Management repositories), but can expand here if anyone is interested.
MongoDB allows for very clean and Unit-Testable repository implementations, that returns strongly typed aggregates. The only thing I haven't solved cleanly yet is telling MongoDb about state objects for child-collections. Currently that is pretty 'static' still, but I'm sure I'll find some nice solution.
You can store your domain objects as-is in document databases. Vaughn Vernon has posted an article The Ideal Domain-Driven Design Aggregate Store? about this, featuring PostgreSQL new (at that time) JSONB document-like storage.
Of course, you get a risk having your aggregates polluted by BsonX attributes, which you probably do not want. You can avoid this by using convention configuration but you will still need to think about serialisation and this can have an effect on the level of encapsulation.
Another pattern here is to use a separate state object, which is then held as a property inside the aggregate root (or regular entity). I would not call it a "DTO", since this is clearly your aggregate state. You are not transferring anything. Methods inside your aggregate can mutate the state or, even better, the state would be an immutable value object and new state is produced when you need to change the state.
In such case persistence would only care about the state object. You still might be unhappy to have MongoDb attributes on the state object properties and this is reasonable. Then, you would need to have an identical structure inside the persistence mechanism, so you can map properties on-to-one.
A current project needs us to persist domain objects in a NoSQL
database such as mongoDB. In many examples (incl. Eric Evans, Vaughn
Vernon) the domain objects are serialized and persisted to the mongoDB
directly.
I can confirm you that MongoDB is a good choice for persisting DDD models. I use MongoDB as an Event store in my current project. You can use MongoDB even if you are not using Event sourcing, for example using an ODM (Object Document Mapper): you have a document for each Aggregate instance (this applies to any document based database, not only MongoDB) and you store nested entities and value objects as nested documents.
We would like to avoid mixing the domain layer with persistence related inforamtion by not having any annotations in our domain objects.
You can use xml mapping.
Also we are concerned about corrupting the persisted data by changing the domain object in the future.
For this you can use custom migration scripts. If you use Event sourcing then there are event versioning strategies.
We came to the conclusion that we need to have some kind of DTOs translating between the domain objects and the persisted data.
This is a bad conclusion.
If you use CQRS you won't need DTOs because the readmodels are enough.
We develop the back office application with quite large Db.
It's not reasonable to load everything from DB to memory so when model's proprties are requested we read from DB (via EF)
But many of our UIs are just simple lists of entities with some (!) properties presented to the user.
For example, we just want to show Id, Title and Name.
And later when user select the item and want to perform some actions the whole object is needed. Now we have list of items stored in memory.
Some properties contain large textst, images or other data.
EF works with entities and reading a bunch of large objects degrades performance notably.
As far as I understand, the problem can be solved by creating lightweight entities and using them in appropriate context.
First.
I'm afraid that each view will make us create new LightweightEntity and we eventually will end with bloated object context.
Second. As the Model wraps EF we need to provide methods for various entities.
Third. ViewModels communicate and pass entities to each other.
So I'm stuck with all these considerations and need good architectural design advice.
Any ideas?
For images an large textst you may consider table splitting, which is commonly used to split a table in a lightweight entity and a "heavy" entity.
But I think what you call lightweight "entities" are data transfer objects (DTO's). These are not supplied by the context (so it won't get bloated) but by projection from entities, which is done in a repository or service.
For projection you can use AutoMapper, especially its newer feature that I describe here. This allows you to reduce the number of methods you need to provide "for various entities" (DTO's), because the type to project to can be given in a generic type parameter.
I found from this post I can remove all instances of an entity by fetching them all and deleting them all.
Isn't there any more efficient way to do removal? My consideration is I will have thousand of records within that entity.
There's no more efficient way, because CoreData is an ORM layer, not a database. Therefore you deal with objects and if you want them gone, you have to delete them.
A trick you may want to investigate is creating a parent object that would have a one-to-many relationship with the objects to delete. You could basically have only one of those that points to every entry in your big table. Set the cascade delete option on the relationship in your model. Then when comes time to purge, you just delete the parent object. Because of lazy loading, it won't try to load your other objects.
This being said, I haven't tried it myself, but it seems like a viable option.
In a special case where all instances of this entity are self-contained, it would be quicker to delete the backing file and re-initialize the management objects. This only works if your data can be arranged so that the temporary stuff is within its own store.
Otherwise, you'd probably get better results by using direct database access instead of core data.
I know that core data should not be considered as ORM but it still offers the functionality that is similar to ORM. Just curious, is it implementing data mapper pattern? I know "The Data Mapper is a layer of software that separates the in-memory objects from the database. Its responsibility is to transfer data between the two and also to isolate them from each other." (Martin Fowler). IMHO context manager handles all SQL stuff into one transaction, so it's very performance wise design and IMHO core data might be considered implementing data mapper pattern.
One year latter, I will contribute with my two cents
I am not an ORM expert and just recently started something using a Data Mapper, but as a long time Core Data user I can say that no. The main objective of this pattern is having a clear cut of a domain object from all database related operations.
Once I start writing unit tests, the first thing I notice is that I must load a database, even if it is just some in memory store, but I do must load one. Also there are no mappers for each class, I have no control about how each relation is stored.
Core Data loads lots of meta information about your object graph and forces some structure to them. Although you can change the persistent store and bake something of your own, you will have lots of restrictions about how to do it, with a clear "relational" feeling to it.
The idea is good, we might say it is some variation of it. Something that I do love is that the save operation is done by the context, not the object itself. So there is some type of separation.
However look at those functions like "awakeFromFetch" or "didSave", both operations are related with the data store, not a plain domain object. A proper Data Mapper pattern would allow you to define those operations for each persistent store, not unified in a single object.
UPDATE:
Funny enough one day after my answer I had to deal with an old CoreData based project and must come back to improve this answer. To make things clear, I do consider that "seems like a pattern" is not enough. For example, implementation of the facade and adapter patterns is quite similar, but you name them differently depending on how you use them.
Is Core Data implementing data mapper?
I must say that my "not quite" should have been "definitely not!"
I have just been very angry because I needed to rename some fields and later add new ones. Although I do know quite well how auto-migrations work with Core Data I forgot how annoying these are.
How many times do you need some new field, rename something, experiment until you get it right.... and every single tiny change requires a full blown database migration? With Data Mappers this never happens because domain objects are perfectly decoupled. You only touch the database to catch up with the domain objects after you finish some new feature. Core Data forces you to bind at every single moment every single detail of your domain objects.
Boy, how sweet life was until I forgot that "tiny" annoyance of Core Data being the exact opposite of what you can achieve with data mappers.
Sometimes I need instantiate CoreDateEntity to store some infomations for temporarily using.
But I needn't it be stored into DB.
currently I created a similar class which have same structures as the CoreDateEntity does.
It works well but I have to do many datas transfer between Two models.
Is there any better way to handle this?
Thanks for all the replies. but you guys just give me half answer of this. consider about this, I need place some entity without MOC into current database pool, how could I do this? I already checked the documents of CoreData, seems I didn't find API to transfer one entity from MOC to another MOC(manage object context).
According to Apple docs you can initialize a managed object without context if you specify nil as context.
- (id)initWithEntity:(NSEntityDescription *)entity insertIntoManagedObjectContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)context
You can assign entities to different stores when you set up the data model. Have one store be the persistent store and the other an in-memory store. You can't form relationships across stores but it sounds like you don't need that.
To assign a configuration, hit the configuration tab (the one with the wrench icon) in the entity detail (where you give it its name, class and parent). When you create the persistent store, add the configuration name to the options dictionary.
Update:
I think you maybe overcomplicating things. It sounds like you have some managed objects that will be temporary and some that will persisted but sometimes you may want to save the temporary objects. I don't think you should bother trying to separate out the "temporary" objects. Doing so just adds complexity without any performance benefit. Instead, just use ordinary persisted objects and then delete the ones you don't want.
Always try the simplest solution first.
Use two different managed object context's and only save the objects from one context. Be careful not to set relationships between objects of two different context's - this doesn't work.