This question seemed fool at first sight for me, but then I realized that I don't have a proper answer yet, and interestingly also didn't find good explanation about it in my searches.
I'm new to Domain Driven Design concepts, so, even if the question is basic, feel free to add any considerations to it.
I'm designing in Rest API to configure Server Instances, and I came up with a Aggregate called Instance that contains a List of Configurations, only one specific Configuration will be active at a given time.
To add a Configuration, one would call an endpoint POST /instances/{id}/configurations with the body on the desired configuration. In response, if all okay, it would receive a HTTP 204 with a Header Location containing the new Configuration ID.
I'm planning to have only one Controller, InstanceController, that would call InstanceService that would manipulate the Instance Aggregate and then store to the Repo.
Since the ID's are generated by the repository, If I call Instance.addConfiguration and then InstanceRepository.store, how would I get the ID of the newly created configuration? I mean, it's a List, so It's not trivial as calling Instance.configuration.identity
A option would implement a method in Instance like, getLastAddedConfiguration, but this seems really brittle.
What is the general approach in this situation?
the ID's are generated by the repository
You could remove this extra complexity. Since Configuration is an entity of the Instance aggregate, its Id only needs to be unique inside the aggregate, not across the whole application. Therefore, the easiest is that the Aggregate assigns the ConfigurationId in the Instance.addConfiguration method (as the aggregate can easily ensure the uniqueness of the new Id). This method can return the new ConfigurationId (or the whole object with the Id if necessary).
What is the general approach in this situation?
I'm not sure about the general approach, but in my opinion, the sooner you create the Ids the better. For Aggregates, you'd create the Id before storing it (maybe a GUID), for entities, the Aggregate can create it the moment of creating/adding the entity. This allows you to perform other actions (eg publishing an event) using these Ids without having to store and retrieve the Ids from the DB, which will necessarily have an impact on how you implement and use your repositories and this is not ideal.
Related
I'm thinking about a REST API design. There are several tables in my database. For example Customer and Order.
Of course - each Order has its Customer (and every customer can have many Orders).
I've decided to provide such an interface
/api/v1/Customers/ -- get list of Customers, add new Customer
/api/v1/Customers/:id: -- get Customer with id=:id:
/api/v1/Orders/ -- get list of Orders, add new Order
/api/v1/Orders/:id: -- get Order with id=:id:
It works flawlessly. But my frontend has to display a list of orders with customer names. With this interface, I will have to make a single call to /api/v1/Orders/ and then another call to /api/v1/Customer/:id: for each record from the previous call. Or perform two calls to /api/v1/Orders/ and /api/v1/Customers/ and combine them on the frontend side.
It looks like overkill, this kind of operation should be done at the database level. But how can/should I provide an appropriate interface?
/api/v1/OrdersWithCustomers
/api/v1/OrdersWithCustomers/:id:
Seems weir. Is it a right way to go
There's no rule that says you cannot "extend" the data being returned from a REST API call. So instead of returning "just" the Order entity (as stored in the backend), you could of course return an OrderResponseDTO which includes all (revelant) fields of the Order entity - plus some from the Customer entity that might are relevant in your use case.
The data model for your REST API does not have to be an exact 1:1 match to your underlying database schema - it does give you the freedom to leave out some fields, or add some additional information that the consumers of your API will find helpful.
Great question, and any API design will tend to hit pragmatic reality at some point like this.
One option is to include a larger object graph for each resource (ie include the customer linked to each order) but use filter query parameters to allow users to specify what properties they require or don't require.
Personally I think that request parameters on a restful GET are fine for either search semantics when retrieving a list of resources, or filtering what is presented for each resource as in this case
Another option for your use case might be to look into a GraphQL approach.
How would you do it on the web?
You've got a web site, and that website serves documents about Customers, and documents about Orders. But your clients aren't happy, because its too much boring, mistake-prone work to aggregate information in the two kinds of documents.
Can we please have a document, they ask, with the boring work already done?
And so you generate a bunch of these new reports, and stick them on your web server, and create links to make it easier to navigate between related documents. TA-DA.
A "REST-API" is a facade that makes your information look and act like a web site. The fact that you are generating your representations from a database is an implementation details, deliberately hidden behind the "uniform interface".
I'm rewriting an API to be more RESTful, but I'm struggling with a design issue. I'll explain the situation first and then my question.
SITUATION:
I have two sets resources users and items. Each user has a list of item, so the resource path would like something like this:
api/v1/users/{userId}/items
Also each user has an isPrimary property, but only one user can be primary at a time. This means that if I want to get the primary user you'd do something like this:
api/v1/users?isPrimary=true
This should return a single "primary" user.
I have client of my API that wants to get the items of the primary user, but can't make two API calls (one to get the primary user and the second to get the items of the user, using the userId). Instead the client would like to make a single API call.
QUESTION:
How should I got about designing an API that fetches the items of a single user in only one API call when all the client has is the isPrimary query parameter for the user?
MY THOUGHTS:
I think I have a some options:
Option 1) api/v1/users?isPrimary=true will return the list of items along with the user data.
I don't like this one, because I have other API clients that call api/v1/users or api/v1/users?isPrimary=true to only get and parse through user data NOT item data. A user can have thousands of items, so returning those items every time would be taxing on both the client and the service.
Option 2) api/v1/users/items?isPrimary=true
I also don't like this because it's ugly and not really RESTful since there is not {userId} in the path and isPrimary isn't a property of items.
Option 3) api/v1/users?isPrimary=true&isShowingItems=true
This is like the first one, but I use another query parameter to flag whether or not to show the items belonging to the user in the response. The problem is that the query parameter is misleading because there is no isShowingItems property associated with a user.
Any help that you all could provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
There's no real standard solution for this, and all of your solutions are in my mind valid. So my answer will be a bit subjective.
Have you looked at HAL for your API format? HAL has a standard way to embed data from one resources into another (using _embedded) and it sounds like a pretty valid use-case for this.
The server can decide whether to embed the items based on a number of criteria, but one cheap solution might be to just add a query parameter like ?embed=items
Even if you don't use HAL, conceptually you could still copy this behavior similarly. Or maybe you only use _embedded. At least it's re-using an existing idea over building something new.
Aside from that practical solution, there is nothing in un-RESTful about exposing data at multiple endpoints. So if you created a resource like:
/v1/primary-user-with-items
Then this might be ugly and inconsistent with the rest of your API, but not inherently
'not RESTful' (sorry for the double negative).
You could include a List<User.Fieldset> parameter called fieldsets, and then include things if they are specified in fieldsets. This has the benefit that you can reuse the pattern by adding fieldsets onto any object in your API that has fields you might wish to include.
api/v1/users?isPrimary=true&fieldsets=items
I asked a question a while back i.e. "How save an entire backbone collection?". However what intrigues me is that why is a save method not offered? Is it unRESTful to save (PUT/POST) entire collections or is it uncommon to do so in the REST-land?
GET: /MySite/Collections - allowed by collection.fetch()
POST: /MySite/Collections - for the model(s) in the collection to be Posted when calling model.save()
PUT: /MySite/Collections/{id} - for the model(s) to be updated individually
GET: /MySite/Collections/{id} - to fetch an individual model throuth model.fetch()
So why not allow for POST/PUT an entire collection of resources? It is convenient sometimes and although one can wrap/hack out some code using collection.toJSON why not include it? I'm just curious about its absence and the rationale for the same. Frameworks not having the capability of a few things usually implies bad programming/design and are thus left out. Is saving an entire collection 'bad practice'?
The wikipedia article about REST does mention CRUD verbs for collection.
But, in my opinion, a Collection is not a resource, it is not an entity, and it has not state. It is, instead, a bunch of resources. And if there would be an UPDATE command for a Collection it would be nothing else but a multiple UPDATE commands over multiple Models. Having the possibility of multiple UPDATE commands in only one request would be helpful but I think this is not a job for the REST implementation.
Also there will be problems of ambiguity, for example in a Collection that contains already saved Models with id and so on, and others that not, what will a POST command mean?... or an UPDATE command?...
No talking about the increase of the complexity in the server side where, if this Collection REST support should be taken like standard, we should to work the double to accomplish the casuistic.
Summarizing: I don't see any case where the need of a Collection REST command can't be solved with the actual, simpler, only-Model REST commands, so keeping the things as simple as possible I think is a good habit.
The repository in the CommonDomain only exposes the "GetById()". So what to do if my Handler needs a list of Customers for example?
On face value of your question, if you needed to perform operations on multiple aggregates, you would just provide the ID's of each aggregate in your command (which the client would obtain from the query side), then you get each aggregate from the repository.
However, looking at one of your comments in response to another answer I see what you are actually referring to is set based validation.
This very question has raised quite a lot debate about how to do this, and Greg Young has written an blog post on it.
The classic question is 'how do I check that the username hasn't already been used when processing my 'CreateUserCommand'. I believe the suggested approach is to assume that the client has already done this check by asking the query side before issuing the command. When the user aggregate is created the UserCreatedEvent will be raised and handled by the query side. Here, the insert query will fail (either because of a check or unique constraint in the DB), and a compensating command would be issued, which would delete the newly created aggregate and perhaps email the user telling them the username is already taken.
The main point is, you assume that the client has done the check. I know this is approach is difficult to grasp at first - but it's the nature of eventual consistency.
Also you might want to read this other question which is similar, and contains some wise words from Udi Dahan.
In the classic event sourcing model, queries like get all customers would be carried out by a separate query handler which listens to all events in the domain and builds a query model to satisfy the relevant questions.
If you need to query customers by last name, for instance, you could listen to all customer created and customer name change events and just update one table of last-name to customer-id pairs. You could hold other information relevant to the UI that is showing the data, or you could simply hold IDs and go to the repository for the relevant customers in order to work further with them.
You don't need list of customers in your handler. Each aggregate MUST be processed in its own transaction. If you want to show this list to user - just build appropriate view.
Your command needs to contain the id of the aggregate root it should operate on.
This id will be looked up by the client sending the command using a view in your readmodel. This view will be populated with data from the events that your AR emits.
I have the basics of a REST service done, with "standard" list and GET/POST/PUT/DELETE verbs implemented around my nouns.
However, the client base I'm working with also wants to have more powerful operations. I'm using Mongo DB on the back-end, and it'd be easy to expose an "update" operation. This page describes how Mongo can do updates.
It'd be easy to write a page that takes a couple of JSON/XML/whatever arguments for the "criteria" and the "objNew" parts of the Mongo update function. Maybe I make a page like http://myserver.com/collection/update that takes a POST (or PUT?) request, with a request body that contains that data. Scrub the input for malicious querying and to enforce security, and we're done. Piece of cake.
My question is: what's the "best" way to expose this in a RESTful manner? Obviously, the approach I described above isn't kosher because "update" isn't a noun. This sort of thing seems much more suitable for a SOAP/RPC method, but the rest of the service is already using REST over HTTP, and I don't want users to have to make two different types of calls.
Thoughts?
Typically, I would handle this as:
url/collection
url/collection/item
GET collection: Returns a representation of the collection resource
GET collection/item: Returns a representation of the item resource
(optional URI params for content-types: json, xml, txt, etc)
POST collection/: Creates a new item (if via XML, I use XSD to validate)
PUT collection/item: Update an existing item
DELETE collection/item: Delete an existing item
Does that help?
Since as you're aware it isn't a good fit for REST, you're just going to have to do your best and invent a standard to make it work. Mongo's update functionality is so far removed from REST, I'd actually allow PUTs on the collection. Ignore the parameters in my examples, I haven't thought too hard about them.
PUT collection?set={field:value}
PUT collection?pop={field:1}
Or:
PUT collection/pop?field=1