I am building simple REST deployable using Spring Boot. Decided to create it by using failing acceptance test first followed with TDD until its green.
My module is pretty simple, I have 3 API's:
Retrieving list of data from datastore.
Adds item to datastore.
Deletes item from datastore.
I feel like it is good idea to abstract datastore and have maybe backed by Map data structure for testing purposes and use it with either NoSQL or SQL db if I want to for deployments/releases and end to end testing.
On the service layer side I am unsure since it would just delegate call to repository with no logic.
So standard approach would be controller->service->repository. In my case service does not do much(possible some exception handling but not more) and I will end up with interface and implementation as an extra as well as few more lines of code. I fell like going for controller->repository solution in my situation but it is not a practice I have seen and not sure how others would see it.
What's the best way to implement this sort of system?
I feel like it is good idea to abstract datastore
You are right. The abstraction is called 'Repository' in DDD (Domain Driven Design) for example.
On the service layer side I am unsure since it would just delegate call to repository with no logic.
I'm pretty sure there are data that you want to validate. So you should have a layer in the middle (e.g. the domain layer) which will be in charge of this validation.
Even so, if you feel like your application is simple and doesn't require such layers, go without. You will have less supple design, but more simplicity at first. Be careful: while evolving your app, you could run into trouble.
Hope this will help.
This is rather an opinion based question, but if you are asking whether a 3 layer architecture is a must, to that I say no. Be pragmatic, if you don' see a reason for a class/layer/module to exist, it does not need to exist.
A repository has a purpose (to store/retrieve), and the api layer has a purpose, to offer those things through HTTP.
Here is an article for building small services with the sparkframework: https://dzone.com/articles/building-simple-restful-api
Related
[Pre]
I have to say that I'm dummy newbie who is trying to get together important puzzles with such crucial details as DDD, TDD, MVVM, and EFCore. I have an about 10 years of windows form develop experience in complete wrong manner, and after I'm joined to Plurasight I'm understood that I'm just lost my last 10 years, and this is really sad :).
[Problem description]
I have an App that i want to re-write from scratch by using latest and greatest technics that've learned for the last 6 month on Pluralsight, but the problem is that these new knowledge’s is stopping me, because simply I'm afraid that I'll do it wrong again...(that is stupid I know, but it is what it is).
So back to my questions, I have a big problem domain, and pretty well documented business logic, which i have to turn in to the code. I'm understand that my start point is design data layer, for these purposes I want to use Entity framework core (I saw Julie Lerman's course on Pluralsight and I think's she is amazing and inspires me to use EFCore as ORM for my app). But at the same time leakage of experience produces more questions than what I’ve learned with Pluralsight, and I will try to write them all(please don’t judge me too hard)
It is looks like that I will need 2 or even more data model projects in my solution, and here is why I have multiple document set types, each of the type contain more than one reference books used to generate unique file names and data sheets. But it looks weird to me have 3 Data model projects such as MyApp.PackType1.DataModel, MyApp.PackType2.DataModel, and each of them will be preinstalled with the EFCore, and each of them will generates its own database based on Data Context defined by EF. Isn’t it very redundant or this is correct way?
I don’t understand how to join these multiple Data Models projects, including Shared Kernel into the one nice model
I don’t understand what is the best way to design my data classes? Should they be just POCO’s or I can design them as nice looking classes with the private var’s and public properties? What are the best practices in here?
Also I don’t understand what is the best practice to use a MVVM pattern on top of that, and is it applicable at all to use MVVM in this case?
Should I keep my Tests in separate projects like MyApp.PackType1.DataModel.Tests, or keep them in same project?
Best regards,
Maks!
P.S.
Apologize for unclear definitions and questions, English isn't my native language.
It's very complicated to answer your question because you have asked for a lot of details, but I going to provide a brief answer and I hope it will be helpful.
You can have only one model for your entities (DDD) and create sub model from this model in your end level projects (Web API or UI)
Read point #1
You have to create an Entity Layer project that represents your database and then you can create DTO's for specific scenarios
From my point of view, use Angular but you can use another UI framework such as React or VueJs, but I prefer to use Angular to build UI interfaces and consume .NET Core Web API from client
Create unit tests and integration tests for you Web API projects and as additional feature you can use Db in memory provider for tests
May be this guide is useful: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1160586/Entity-Framework-Core-for-Enterprise
Regards
Hm, multiple DbContexts (models) usually come about when you have distinct databases you are using. General rule is one Context = one Database. Exceptions can occur when there are a lot of tables that can be grouped functionally, but there are downsides to that approach.
A DbContext is a repository pattern but for individual tables. Using a Unit of Work pattern and layering with a custom repository provider would allow you to make it "appear" as a single database, hiding the complexity from the front-end.
Your entity descriptions are usually created as straight POCO. You can get creative with different DTOs
In a nutshell, an MVVM pattern goes like this:
Request from UI to a controller
Controller possibly issues multiple calls to Data Layer to gather data
Assemble data in a single ViewModel (everything the page needs)
Return to UI
The beauty of the approach is single roundtrip (request/response) to the UI
Separate Project in my opinion. There are techniques to spoof the database connection using EF so you are not using "live" data.
That CodeProject article will come in handy.
I am creating the high level design for a new service. The complexity of the service warrants using DDD (I think). So I did the conventional thing and created domain services, aggregates, repositories, etc. My repositories encapsulate the data source. So a query can look for an object in the cache, failing that look in the db, failing that make a REST call to an external service to fetch the required information. This is fairly standard. Now the argument put forward by my colleagues is that abstracting the data source this way is dangerous because the developer using the repository will not be aware of the time required to execute the api and consequently not be able to calculate the execution time for any apis he writes above it. May be he would want to set up his component's behaviour differently if he knew that his call would result in a REST call. They are suggesting I move the REST call outside of the repository and maybe even the caching strategy along with it. I can see their point but the whole idea behind the repository pattern is precisely to hide this kind of information and not have each component deal with caching strategies and data access. My question is, is there a pattern or model which addresses this concern?
They are suggesting I move the REST call outside of the repository
Then you won't have a repository. The repository means we don't know persistence details, not that we don't know there is persistence. Every time we're using a repository, regardless of its implementation (from a in memory list to a REST call) we expect 'slowness' because it's common knowledge that persistence usually is the bottleneck.
Someone who will use a certain repository implementation (like REST based) will know it will deal with latency and transient errors. A service having just a IRepository dependency still knows it deals with persistence.
About caching strategies, you can have some service level (more generic) caching and repository level (persistence specific) caching. These probably should be implementation details.
Now the argument put forward by my colleagues is that abstracting the data source this way is dangerous because the developer using the repository will not be aware of the time required to execute the api and consequently not be able to calculate the execution time for any apis he writes above it. May be he would want to set up his component's behaviour differently if he knew that his call would result in a REST call.
This is wasting time trying to complicate your life. The whole point of an abstraction is to hide the dirty details. What they suggest is basically: let's make the user aware of some implementation detail, so that the user can couple its code to that.
The point is, a developer should be aware of the api they're using. If a component is using an external service (db, web service), this should be known. Once you know there's data to be fetched, you know you'll have to wait for it.
If you go the DDD route then you have bounded contexts (BC). Making a model dependent on another BC is a very bad idea . Each BC should publish domain events and each interested BC should subscribe and keep their very own model based on those events. This means the queries will be 'local' but you'll still be hitting a db.
Repository pattern aim to reduce the coupling with persistence layer. In my opinion I wouldn't risk to make a repository so full of responsibility.
You could use an Anti Corruption Layer against changes in external service and a Proxy to hide the caching related issues.
Then in the application layer I will code the fallback strategy.
I think it all depends where you think the fetching/fallback strategy belongs, in the Service layer or in the Infrastructure layer (latter sounds more legit to me).
It could also be a mix of the two -- the Service is passed an ordered series of Repositories to use one after the other in case of failure. Construction of the series of Repos could be placed in the Infrastructure layer or somewhere else. Fallback logic in one place, fallback configuration in another.
As a side note, asynchrony seems like a good way to signal the users that something is potentially slow and would be blocking if you waited for it. Better than hiding everything behind a vanilla, inconspicuous Repository name and better than adding some big threatening "this could be slow" prefix to your type, IMO.
(Note: My question has very similar concerns as the person who asked this question three months ago, but it was never answered.)
I recently started working with MVC3 + Entity Framework and I keep reading that the best practice is to use the repository pattern to centralize access to the DAL. This is also accompanied with explanations that you want to keep the DAL separate from the domain and especially the view layer. But in the examples I've seen the repository is (or appears to be) simply returning DAL entities, i.e. in my case the repository would return EF entities.
So my question is, what good is the repository if it only returns DAL entities? Doesn't this add a layer of complexity that doesn't eliminate the problem of passing DAL entities around between layers? If the repository pattern creates a "single point of entry into the DAL", how is that different from the context object? If the repository provides a mechanism to retrieve and persist DAL objects, how is that different from the context object?
Also, I read in at least one place that the Unit of Work pattern centralizes repository access in order to manage the data context object(s), but I don't grok why this is important either.
I'm 98.8% sure I'm missing something here, but from my readings I didn't see it. Of course I may just not be reading the right sources... :\
I think the term "repository" is commonly thought of in the way the "repository pattern" is described by the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture by Martin Fowler.
A Repository mediates between the domain and data mapping layers,
acting like an in-memory domain object collection. Client objects
construct query specifications declaratively and submit them to
Repository for satisfaction. Objects can be added to and removed from
the Repository, as they can from a simple collection of objects, and
the mapping code encapsulated by the Repository will carry out the
appropriate operations behind the scenes.
On the surface, Entity Framework accomplishes all of this, and can be used as a simple form of a repository. However, there can be more to a repository than simply a data layer abstraction.
According to the book Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans, a repository has these advantages:
They present clients with a simple model for obtaining persistence objects and managing their life cycle
They decouple application and domain design from persistence technology, multiple database strategies, or even multiple data sources
They communicate design decisions about object access
They allow easy substitution of a dummy implementation, for unit testing (typically using an in-memory collection).
The first point roughly equates to the paragraph above, and it's easy to see that Entity Framework itself easily accomplishes it.
Some would argue that EF accomplishes the second point as well. But commonly EF is used simply to turn each database table into an EF entity, and pass it through to UI. It may be abstracting the mechanism of data access, but it's hardly abstracting away the relational data structure behind the scenes.
In simpler applications that mostly data oriented, this might not seem to be an important point. But as the applications' domain rules / business logic become more complex, you may want to be more object oriented. It's not uncommon that the relational structure of the data contains idiosyncrasies that aren't important to the business domain, but are side-effects of the data storage. In such cases, it's not enough to abstract the persistence mechanism but also the nature of the data structure itself. EF alone generally won't help you do that, but a repository layer will.
As for the third advantage, EF will do nothing (from a DDD perspective) to help. Typically DDD uses the repository not just to abstract the mechanism of data persistence, but also to provide constraints around how certain data can be accessed:
We also need no query access for persistent objects that are more
convenient to find by traversal. For example, the address of a person
could be requested from the Person object. And most important, any
object internal to an AGGREGATE is prohibited from access except by
traversal from the root.
In other words, you would not have an 'AddressRepository' just because you have an Address table in your database. If your design chooses to manage how the Address objects are accessed in this way, the PersonRepository is where you would define and enforce the design choice.
Also, a DDD repository would typically be where certain business concepts relating to sets of domain data are encapsulated. An OrderRepository may have a method called OutstandingOrdersForAccount which returns a specific subset of Orders. Or a Customer repository may contain a PreferredCustomerByPostalCode method.
Entity Framework's DataContext classes don't lend themselves well to such functionality without the added repository abstraction layer. They do work well for what DDD calls Specifications, which can be simple boolean expressions sent in to a simple method that will evaluate the data against the expression and return a match.
As for the fourth advantage, while I'm sure there are certain strategies that might let one substitute for the datacontext, wrapping it in a repository makes it dead simple.
Regarding 'Unit of Work', here's what the DDD book has to say:
Leave transaction control to the client. Although the REPOSITORY will insert into and delete from the database, it will ordinarily not
commit anything. It is tempting to commit after saving, for example,
but the client presumably has the context to correctly initiate and
commit units of work. Transaction management will be simpler if the
REPOSITORY keeps its hands off.
Entity Framework's DbContext basically resembles a Repository (and a Unit of Work as well). You don't necessarily have to abstract it away in simple scenarios.
The main advantage of the repository is that your domain can be ignorant and independent of the persistence mechanism. In a layer based architecture, the dependencies point from the UI layer down through the domain (or usually called business logic layer) to the data access layer. This means the UI depends on the BLL, which itself depends on the DAL.
In a more modern architecture (as propagated by domain-driven design and other object-oriented approaches) the domain should have no outward-pointing dependencies. This means the UI, the persistence mechanism and everything else should depend on the domain, and not the other way around.
A repository will then be represented through its interface inside the domain but have its concrete implementation outside the domain, in the persistence module. This way the domain depends only on the abstract interface, not the concrete implementation.
That basically is object-orientation versus procedural programming on an architectural level.
See also the Ports and Adapters a.k.a. Hexagonal Architecture.
Another advantage of the repository is that you can create similar access mechanisms to various data sources. Not only to databases but to cloud-based stores, external APIs, third-party applications, etc.
You're right,in those simple cases the repository is just another name for a DAO and it brings only one value: the fact that you can switch EF to another data access technique. Today you're using MSSQL, tomorrow you'll want a cloud storage. OR using a micro orm instead of EF or switching from MSSQL to MySql.
In all those cases it's good that you use a repository, as the rest of the app won't care about what storage you're using now.
There's also the limited case where you get information from multiple sources (db + file system), a repo will act as the facade, but it's still a another name for a DAO.
A 'real' repository is valid only when you're dealing with domain/business objects, for data centric apps which won't change storage, the ORM alone is enough.
It would be useful in situations where you have multiple data sources, and want to access them using a consistent coding strategy.
For example, you may have multiple EF data models, and some data accessed using traditional ADO.NET with stored procs, and some data accessed using a 3rd party API, and some accessed from an Access database living on a Windows NT4 server sitting under a blanket of dust in your broom closet.
You may not want your business or front-end layers to care about where the data is coming from, so you build a generic repository pattern to access "data", rather than to access "Entity Framework data".
In this scenario, your actual repository implementations will be different from each other, but the code that calls them wouldn't know the difference.
Given your scenario, I would simply opt for a set of interfaces that represent what data structures (your Domain Models) need to be returned from your data layer. Your implementation can then be a mixture of EF, Raw ADO.Net or any other type of Data Store/Provider. The key strategy here is that the implementation is abstracted away from the immediate consumer - your Domain layer. This is useful when you want to unit test your domain objects and, in less common situations - change your data provider / database platform altogether.
You should, if you havent already, consider using an IOC container as they make loose coupling of your solution very easy by way of Dependency Injection. There are many available, personally i prefer Ninject.
The domain layer should encapsulate all of your business logic - the rules and requirements of the problem domain, and can be consumed directly by your MVC3 web application. In certain situations it makes sense to introduce a services layer that sits above the domain layer, but this is not always necessary, and can be overkill for straightforward web applications.
Another thing to consider is that even when you know that you will be working with a single data store it still might make sense to create a repository abstraction. The reason is that there might be a function that your application needs that your ORM du jour either does badly (performance), not at all, or you just don't know how to make the ORM bend to your needs.
If you are wrapping your ORM behind a well thought out repository interface, you can easily switch between different technologies as you see fit. It's not uncommon in my repositories to see some methods use EF for their work and others to use something like PetaPoco, or (gasp) ADO.net code. The repository abstraction enables you to use exactly the right tool for the job at hand without leaking these complexities into the client code.
I think there is a big misunderstanding of what many articles call "repository." And that's why there are doubts about what real value those abstractions bring.
In my opinion the repository in it's pure form is IEnumerable, while you and many articles are talking about "data access service."
I've blogged about it here.
This is a discussion that seems to reappear regularly in the SOA world. I heard it as far back as '95, but it's probably been a topic of conversation long before that. I definitely have my own opinions about it, but I'd like to hear some good, solid arguments for having a Data Services Layer, and likewise for arguments against having one.
What value does it add to a systems architecture?
What are the inherent pitfalls?
What are common anti-patterns?
Links to articles are definitely acceptable.
To avoid confusion, this article describes the type of Data Service Layer I'm talking about. Essentially, a thin layer above the database that provides SOAP access to data and includes no business logic.
Data services are quite data oriented, for projects without logic always doing crud. For instance, it can suit if you have a log service or a properties service, you will just do the crud to it.
If the domain that involves that DDBB is complex, with complex logic, you will need to manage that logic up to that service (maybe in an orchestration), so you will divide the logic into several services. In that case I think is better to use a thicker unique service (DAL, BLL and SIL) that manage that domain and expose just one interface.
At the end it is another tool, depend of the problem.
I’m just working on this interesting thing with ADO.net entities and need your opinion. Often a solution would be created to provide a service (WCF or web service) to allow access to the DB via the entity framework, but I working on an application that runs internally and has domain access pretty much all the time. The question is if it’s good practice to create a data service for the application to interface from or could I go from the WPF application directly to the entity framework. What’s the best practice in this case and what are some of the pros’ and cons’ to the two different approach.
By using entity framework directly, do you mean that the WPF application would connect to the database, or that it would still use services but re-use the entities?
If it's the first approach, I tend to be against this because it means multiple clients connecting to the database, which a) is an additional security concern, b) could make it more expensive from a licensing perspective, and c) means you don't get the benefits of connection pooling. Databases are the most expensive things to scale so I'd try to design the solution to use services and reduce the pressure on the database. But there are times when it's appropriate. One thing I've noticed is that applications which do start out connecting directly tend to get refactored to go via a service later; it seldom happens the other way around. But it might also be a case of YAGNI.
If it's the second approach, I think that's fine. It's common for people looking at WCF to think "service oriented" - that is, there should be a strict contract between services and things shouldn't be shared. But a "multi-tier" application, which is only designed to have one client, is also a perfectly valid architecture and doesn't need to be so decoupled. In that case, reusing the entities on both sides of the service boundary should be fine. However, I'm not sure how easy this is to do with EF specifically, since I haven't used it except in experiments.
It really depends on the level of complexity and the required level of coupling/modularity. I think a good compromise would be to create a EF model in it's own library or the like with a simple level of abstraction. In that scenario if you chose to change the model to use an exposed service instead of direct access it shouldn't be a big deal to refactor existing code and the new service could utilize the existing library.