I'm trying to understand where does InputModel and ViewModels fit at the 4 Layer Architecture.
Presentation | Application | Domain | Infrastructure
Given that the Application Layer takes care about exchange data beteween Presentation Layer and Domain Layer, I supposed that, they must live inside this layer, as well the adapter to convert It back to Domain Entity and vice versa.
InputModels, also know as Commands, in ASP.NET MVC they can coincide with ViewModels.
Makes no sense to me ViewModels inside the Presentation. From the Application Layer I should return ViewModels to the Presentation and receive ViewModels to Mapp It back to Domain Entity. If I have ViewModels inside the Presentation, and the presentations refers to Application Layer, I will have a loop reference.
And also, for example, If I have a Presentation build into ASP.NET MVC and I have the necessity to change It for Windows Application I will lost this ViewModels that fit on my requisites, what is a shame, given that I already have everything built in to change the presentation Technology.
I'm reading the book From Dino Esposito and Andrea Saltarello, Microsoft .NET: Architecting for the Enterprise. They don't talk too much about the Application Layer, only say that, this one should Orchestrate Domain Services and Repositories to fullfill User Cases, and to hide Domain from the Presentation.
Is this right? Should I put this DTOs inside the Application Layer? If not, Where does they fit on the Lasangna?
DTOs should be defined in whichever of the two layers is higher in the dependency food chain, to avoid circular references. This would mean the Application layer in an Onion / hexagonal architecture, because dependencies point inward -- Presentation references Application. I don't know about other layered architecture styles. Alternatively, you could place DTO's in their own separate layer which would be referenced by the two others and stand above them.
DTOs are not part of the problem domain, they're implementation details. So the question is, what part of implementation is using the DTO? Entities in DDD however should exist totally independent of any implementation, and deal only with domain specific business logic.
Related
I'm building a WPF application using MVVM pattern, and Caliburn.Micro is the framework choice to boost up the development.
Different from a conventional MVVM-based application, I add a business layer (BL) below the ViewModel (VM) layer to handle logic for specific business cases. VM is left with data binding and simple conversion/presentation logic. Below BL is an extra Data Access layer (DAL) that encapsulates the Data model (DM) underneath built with Entity Framework.
I'm pretty new to both WPF, MVVM and, of course, know almost nothing about Caliburn. I have read plenty of questions and answers about the Caliburn usage and now trying to use what I've learnt so far in my application.
My questions are:
Does it sound okay with the above layered architecture?
In the application bootstrapper, is it correct that we can register all services that will later be used (like EventAgreggator (EA), WindowManager or extra security and validation services), and also all the concerned VMs? These should be injected into VM instances via constructors or so (supposed I'll be using SimpleContainer). So from any VM that are properly designed and instantiated, we can have these services ready to be used. If I understand correctly, Caliburn and its IoC maintain a kind of global state so that different VMs can use and share it.
Navigation: I know this topic has been discussed so many times. But just to be sure I'm doing the right way: There'd be a ShellViewModel acting as the main window for the whole application with different VMs (or screens) loaded dynamically. Each VM can inherit either Screen or ViewModelBase or NotifyChangedBase. When I'm in, let's say, VM A and want to switch to VM B. I'd from inside VM A send a message (using EA) to the ShellViewModel, saying that I want to change to B. ShellViewModel receives the message and reloads its CurrentViewModel property. What should be a proper data structure to maintain the list of VMs to be loaded? How can stuffs like Conductor or WindowManger come into the place?
Can/Should Caliburn in one way or another support the access to the database (via EF). Or this access should be exposed to VM and/or BL only?
Thanks a lot!
Different from a conventional MVVM-based application, I add a business layer (BL) below the ViewModel (VM) layer
That's the standard case. ViewModels can't/shouldn't contain business logic which is considered to be part of the Model (Model in MVVM is considered a layer, not an object or data structure) in the MVVM. ViewModel is for presentation logic only.
Yes, as long as your Business (Domain) Layer has no dependency on the DAL (no reference to it's assembly). Repository interfaces should be defined in the Business Layer, their implementations in the Data Access Layer.
Yes, Bootstrapper is where you build your object graph (configuration the IoC container).
Registering ViewModels: Depends on IoC framework. Some frameworks let you resolve unregistered types, as long as they are not abstract or interfaces (i.e. Unity). Not sure about Caliburn, haven't used it. If the IoC supports it, you don't need to register them.
One possible way to do it. I prefer navigation services though, works better for passing around parameters to views and windows that are not yet instantiated and you always know there is exactly one objects handling it.
With messages, there could be 0, 1 or many objects listening to it. Up to you
What do you mean with support access to the database? You can use it to inject your repositories and/or services into your ViewModels, other than that there isn't much DB related stuff to it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
What is your opinion on the following 'generic' code-first Onion-inspired ASP.NET MVC architecture:
The layers, explained:
Core - contain the Domain model. e.g. that's the business objects and their relationship. I am using Entity Framework to visually design the entities and the relations between them. It lets me generate a script for a database. I am getting automatically-generated POCO-like models, which I can freely refer to in the next layer (Persistence), since they are simple (i.e. they are not database-specific).
Persistence - Repository interface and implementations. Basically CRUD operations on the Domain model.
BusinessServices - A business layer around the repository. All the business logic should be here (e.g. GetLargestTeam(), etc). Uses CRUD operations to compose return objects or get/filter/store data. Should contain all business rules and validations.
Web (or any other UI) - In this particular case it's an MVC application, but the idea behind this project is to provide UI, driven by what the Business services offer. The UI project consumes the Business layer and has no direct access to the Repository. The MVC project has its own View models, which are specific to each View situation. I am not trying to force-feed it Domain Models.
So the references go like this:
UI -> Business Services -> Repository -> Core objects
What I like about it:
I can design my objects, rather than code them manually. I am getting
code-generated Model objects.
UI is driven/enforced by the Business
layer. Different UI applications can be coded against the same
Business model.
Mixed feelings about:
Fine, we have a pluggable repository implementation, but how often do you really have different implementations of the same persistence interface?
Same goes for the UI - we have the technical ability to implement different UI apps against the same business rules, but why would we do that, when we can simply render different views (mobile, desktop, etc)?
I am not sure if the UI should only communicate with the Business Layer via View models, or should I use Domain Models to transfer data, as I do now. For display, I am using view models, but for data transfer I am using Domain models. Wrong?
What I don't like:
The Core project is now referenced in every other project - because I want/have to access the Domain models. In classic Onion architecture, the core is referenced only by the next layer.
The DbContext is implemented in the .Core project, because it is being generated by the Entity Framework, in the same place where the .edmx is. I actually want to use the .EDMX for the visual model design, but I feel like the DbContext belongs to the Persistence layer, somewhere within the database-specific repository implementation.
As a final question - what is a good architecture which is not over-engineered (such as a full-blown Onion, where we have injections, service locators, etc) but at the same time provides some reasonable flexibility, in places where you would realistically need it?
Thanks
Wow, there’s a lot to say here! ;-)
First of all, let’s talk about the overall architecture.
What I can see here is that it’s not really an Onion architecture. You forgot the outermost layer, the “Dependency Resolution” layer. In an Onion architecture, it’s up to this layer to wires up Core interfaces to Infrastructure implementations (where your Persistence project should reside).
Here’s a brief description of what you should find in an Onion application. What goes in the Core layer is everything unique to the business: Domain model, business workflows... This layer defines all technical implementation needs as interfaces (i.e.: repositories’ interfaces, logging interfaces, session’s interfaces …). The Core layer cannot reference any external libraries and has no technology specific code. The second layer is the Infrastructure layer. This layer provides implementations for non-business Core interfaces. This is where you call your DB, your web services … You can reference any external libraries you need to provide implementations, deploy as many nugget packages as you want :-). The third layer is your UI, well you know what to put in there ;-) And the latest layer, it’s the Dependency Resolution I talked about above.
Direction of dependency between layers is toward the center.
Here’s how it could looks like:
The question now is: how to fit what you’ve already coded in an Onion architecture.
Core: contain the Domain model
Yes, this is the right place!
Persistence - Repository interface and implementations
Well, you’ll need to separate interfaces with implementations. Interfaces need to be moved into Core and implementations need to be moved into Infrastructure folder (you can call this project Persistence).
BusinessServices - A business layer around the repository. All the
business logic should be here
This needs to be moved in Core, but you shouldn’t use repositories implementations here, just manipulate interfaces!
Web (or any other UI) - In this particular case it's an MVC
application
cool :-)
You will need to add a “Bootstrapper“ project, just have a look here to see how to proceed.
About your mixed feelings:
I won’t discuss about the need of having repositories or not, you’ll find plenty of answers on stackoverflow.
In my ViewModel project I have a folder called “Builder”. It’s up to my Builders to discuss with my Business services interfaces in order to get data. The builder will receive lists of Core.Domain objects and will map them into the right ViewModel.
About what you don’t like:
In classic Onion architecture, the core is referenced only by the next
layer.
False ! :-) Every layer needs the Core to have access to all the interfaces defined in there.
The DbContext is implemented in the .Core project, because it is being
generated by the Entity Framework, in the same place where the .edmx
is
Once again, it’s not a problem as soon as it’s really easy to edit the T4 template associated with your EDMX. You just need to change the path of the generated files and you can have the EDMX in the Infrastructure layer and the POCO’s in your Core.Domain project.
Hope this helps!
I inject my services into my controllers. The services return DTO's which reside in Core.
The model you have looks good, I don't use the repository pattern but many people do. I is difficult to work with EF in this type of architecture which is why I chose to use Nhibernate.
A possible answer to your final question.
CORE
DOMAIN
DI
INFRASTRUCTURE
PRESENTATION
SERVICES
In my opinion:
"In classic Onion architecture, the core is referenced only by the next layer."
That is not true, Core should be reference by any layer... remember that Direction of dependency between layers is toward the center (Core).
"the layers above can use any layer beneath them" By Jeffrey Palermo http://jeffreypalermo.com/blog/the-onion-architecture-part-3/
About your EF, it is in the wrong place.... it should be in the Infrastructure layer not in the Core layer. And use POCO Generator to create the entities (POCO classes) in Core/Model. Or use a Auto-mapper so you can map Core Model (Business objects) to Entity Model (EF Entities)
What you've done looks pretty good and is basically one of two standard architectures that I see a lot.
Mixed feelings about:
Fine, we have a pluggable repository implementation, but how often do you really have different implementations of the same persistence interface?
Pluggable is often touted as being good design but I've never once seen a team swap out a major implementation of something for something else. They just modify the existing thing. IMHO "pluggability" is only useful for being able to mock components for automated unit testing.
I am not sure if the UI should only communicate with the Business Layer via View models, or should I use Domain Models to transfer data, as I do now. For display, I am using view models, but for data transfer I am using Domain models. Wrong?
I reckon view models are a UI (MVC Web) concern, if you added a different type of UI for example it might not require view models or might need something different. So I think the Business layer should return domain entities and allow them to be mapped to view models in the UI layer.
What I don't like:
The Core project is now referenced in every other project - because I want/have to access the Domain models. In classic Onion architecture, the core is referenced only by the next layer.
As others have said this is quite normal. Usually everything ends up having a dependency on the Domain.
The DbContext is implemented in the .Core project, because it is being generated by the Entity Framework, in the same place where the .edmx is. I actually want to use the .EDMX for the visual model design, but I feel like the DbContext belongs to the Persistence layer, somewhere within the database-specific repository implementation.
I think this is a consequence of Entity Framework. If you used it in "Code First" mode you actually can - and usually do - have the context and repository in the Persistance layer with the Domain (represented as POCO classes) in what you've called Core.
As a final question - what is a good architecture which is not over-engineered (such as a full-blown Onion, where we have injections, service locators, etc) but at the same time provides some reasonable flexibility, in places where you would realistically need it?
As I touched on above I wouldn't worry about the need to swap things out except to allow for automated unit tests. Unless there is a specific requirement you know about that will make this very likely.
Good luck!
just starting with DDD. I understand that all the domain entities and their logic should be kept in Domain layer along with repository interfaces. In my application I store some data in the database that is used to construct parts of the user interface (presentation layer) at run time. Where should I keep the poco classes and repository interfaces for such types, in Application layer or Domain layer. I can not make out because these objects will not have any domain related business logic but they need to be hydrated from the database and I am using EF so for data access I will need entities and repositories so to me obvious choice is to keep them with all other entities and repository interfaces in domain layer but that breaks DDD rules
I think you've answered your own question:
In my application I store some data in the database that is used to
construct parts of the user interface (presentation layer) at run
time.
Access to data that is used to serve the UI should be encapsulated in the presentation layer. This is different from the application layer in that a DDD application layer implements use cases by orchestrating repositories and delegating to appropriate entities, domain services - it forms an API around your domain layer. Different presentation implementations can use the same application service.
However, different presentation layer implementations may require different data. Therefore, place presentation data access directly in the presentation layer. This can be implemented with EF which is not exclusive for DDD scenarios.
A good way to think of it is this - if you had to replace EF with stored procedures for performance reasons, you should not have to modify your domain code. So anything that blocks that needs to be hidden behind an interface and made replaceable.
Repositories CAN be a part of domain logic. However what should not be is the mechanism for persistence. This can easily be encapsulated into a DAL service or other object, which of course is programmed to an IDALService interface. So when you need to switch persistance (for example, moving from EF to a NoSQL solution) you simply write an alternative version that implements the IDALService interface, and you're good to go. The repositories can still do the logic within them, but are now using a new way to store them (this is an Inversion of Control idea).
As for the POCO objects, in DDD the real question is what do they represent? Are they entities, that need to be persisted? Are they value objects? Don't let the technology (EF) determine what the structure of your object model is, instead provide means to translate to an application scope.
In the Application layer. Keep the domain intact and isolated.
about a year ago I set set up a solution consisting of an ASP.Net MVC 3 (now) presentation layer, application layer, domain layer and infrastructure layer (crosscutting stuff and data). I decided to keep the domain model in a separate project from the domain logic and use a relaxed approach to the presentation layer by passing the domain entities instead of DTO's since we really only have 1 front end right now.
We are going to be servicing a distributed layer soon, in addition to our main website and I will use DTO's there, but I am considering using DTO's in the main website also. I am also wondering if I should bother to break out the framework code in the domain layer (IRepository, IUnitOfWork, Entity/Value object supertypes etc). Well here, let me list out the questions I need feedback on:
1) I was pretty diligent about not having an anemic domain model and also watched out for behavior that was specific to the presentation concerns. Most of the business calculations that are needed are on the domain entities, is it ok for the presentation layer to call this behavior directly or should it instead call an application service that then calls the domain entities? This would suggest to me that there is no reason to have the presentation layer know about the domain entities and instead could use DTO's. Alternatively, I could have the DTO's expose these behaviors, but then I feel like I am robbing the domain entities. So I guess that is 3 options (Rich domain objects called directly, service layer or dto with behavior) which is best?
2) Right now I have a domain project, which has domain services, specifications and logic and is orchestrated by the application layer and separate project for the domain model (used by presentation layer and application layer). I also have framework interfaces for generic repository and unit of work pattern here. Should I break the framework stuff out into a separate project and combine the rest into one project?
3) I want to reorganize my domain layer into aggregates, right now all of the domain model is organized by modules, basically all the types for each module are in one namespace. Would it be better to organize the entities, value objects, services and other stuff by the aggregates?
4) Should I use the Separated Interface pattern for infrastructure services that are basically .net framework helper library types? For example configuration objects or validation runners? What is the benefit there in doing so?
5) Lastly, not many examples I have seen have used interfaces for domain entities. Almost every object I have I prefer to pass around interfaces for dependency reasons and it makes testing much easier. Is it valid to use interfaces instead of concretes? I should mention that we use EF 4.3.1 (soon to upgrade to latest version) and I seem to remember that EF had a problem with using interfaces or something. Should I be exposing interfaces instead of the domain entities?
Thank you very much in advance.
Project Structure:
Presentation.Web
| |
| Application
| | |
Domain.Model - Domain
(Infrastructure.Data, Infrastructure.Core, Infrastructure.Security)
Explanation:
Presentation.Web (MVC3 Web Project)
Application
-- Service Layer that orchestrates the domain layer and responds to requests from the presentation layer (get this update that). This is organized by module, for example if I had a customer module I would have Application.Customer and in that would be all of the application services
Domain
-- Contains domain services, specifications, calculations and other domain logic that is not exposed as behavior on domain entities. For example a calculation that involves several domain entities exposed as a domain service for the application layer to call.
-- Also contains framework code for a specification framework and the main interfaces for a generic repository and unit of work pattern.
Domain.Model
-- Contains the domain entities and enumerations. Organized by module. For example, if I might have a customer module which has a customer entity, customerorder entity etc. This is broken out away from the domain project so that the objects can be used by the application and presenation layer.
Infrastructure.Security
-- Security infrastructure for authentication and authorization
Infrastructure.Core
-- Cross-cutting stuff used by multiple layers (validators, logging, configuration, extensions, IoC, email etc..). Most of the projects depend on interfaces in this project (except domain.model) for infrastructure services.
Infrastructure.Data
-- Repository Implementations via LINQ and EF 4.3.1, mapping layer, Unit of Work implementation. Interfaces are in Domain project (separated interfaces pattern)
1) First, determine whether your main website really needs to use the application layer. IMHO, if your application services and your main website are on the same web server, then you should evaluate whether the potential performance loss is worth having your main website call app server methods when it could call the domain objects directly. However, if your application server is definitely on another server, then yes, you should have the application server call your domain objects and pass only DTOs back and forth between it and any presentation layers you may have, including your main website.
2) This is really a question on preference of organization. Both are valid. You choose.
3) Anoter question on preference of organization. I, personally, organize my code by bounded context first. Then, I have entities and aggregate roots directly under them. Then, I have folders for Enumerations, Repositories (interfaces), Services (interfaces), Specifications, and Values. The namespaces do not reflect this organizational structure past the last bounded context folder. But, again, you should do this in the way that best suits the way you look at the code.
4) This is an implementation concern. I, personally, only break out implementation concerns into interfaces if I think there is a good possibility that I will need to swap out the implementations in the future. That being said, I usually organize my helper libraries into specific infrastructure contexts (eg. MainContext.Web.MVC.Helpers or MainContext.Web.WebForms.Helpers.) These rarely change and I have yet to come across an instance where I needed to swap out implementations entirely.
5) From my understanding, it is perfectly valid to use interfaces instead of concretes for your domain entities. That being said, I have yet to run into a case where I needed different implementations for my domain entities. The only reason I can even think of would be if you needed to change your business logic for one application, but leave an older application using the original business logic. If your business objects are good models for the domain, I can't fathom you actually running into this problem, but I have seen examples where people do this just for the sake of the abstraction. IMHO, that is not worth the extra coding effort, but if it makes you feel good inside or you get some actual benefit (eg. making testing easier), there isn't any reason why you can't abstract out your domain entities. That being said, domain services and repositories should definitely have contracts that allows you to swap out their implementations.
Answer 5 is derived from the idea that the application is the one who chooses the implementations. If you are trying to achieve onion architecture, then your application is going to be choosing the concrete implementations for everything (repositories, domain services, and other abstracted implementation concerns). I see no reason why it can't just use domain aggregates directly since they are the concrete representation of your domain model. (Note: All entities should be encapsulated into aggregates. The application should never be able to hold a reference to an entity that is not an aggregate under the context)
I know this might sound silly but I am finding it hard to understand the need of a service layer and its differences with business layer.
So, we are using asp.net mvc 2 and have Data Access layer which does all the querying with the database and then we have the Business Layer which has the business logic and validations needed to be done. Finally we have the Presentation Layer which basically has all the views. In addition we also have some helpers,DTOs and viewmodel classes in different folders as a part of our libraries. But I have tried to read about architecture and it seems that service layer is an important part of an architecture.
All I understand is that a service layer is something that calls all the functions.
But I can't really see the need of Service layer in our application ? Or it might be already there and I can't see it... Can anyone explain with an example how a service layer is important ? How it is different from a business layer because from what I have read seem pretty similar?
If its in the first needed at all ? All we trying to do is architect our application in the best possible way what are your thoughts and experience on it ?
It is all about decoupling your app into self contained pieces, each one defined by the requirement to do one job really well.
This allows you to apply specialised design patterns and best practices to each component.
For example, the business layer's job is to implement the business logic. Full stop. Exposing an API designed to be consumed by the presentation layer is not its "concern".
This role of the go between is best performed by a service layer. Factoring out this specialised layer allows you to apply much more specialised patterns to each individual component.
There is no need to do design things this way, but the accumulated experience of the community indicates that it results in an application that is much easier to develop and maintain because you know exactly what each component is expected to do, even before you start coding the app.
Each layer should do one job really well. The role of go between that the service layer performs is one such well defined job and that is the reason for its existence: it is a unit of complexity that is designed in the same way over and over again, rather than having to reinvent the wheel each time, to mangle this role with the business logic where it does not belong. Think of the service layer as a mapping component. It is external to the business logic and does not belong in its classes, or in the controllers either.
Also, as a result of being factored out of the business logic, you get simpler business objects that are easier to use by other applications and services that the "business" consumes.
ASP.NET MVC is nothing if not a platform to enable you to write your apps as specialised components.
As a result of this increasing understanding of how to specialise components, programs are evolving from a primordial bowl of soup and spaghetti into something different and strange. The complexity they can address, whilst still using simple structures, is increasing. Evolution is getting going. If life is anything to go by, this has to be good, so keep the ball rolling.
You might find the term Architecture Astronaut interesting.
The point is, don't get caught up in all of these "layers" that people bandy about. Every time you had another layer to the application, there has to be a purpose in it.
For example, some people successfully combine the concepts of a Data Access and Business Logic layer into one. It's not right for every solution, but it works out perfectly for a lot of them. Some people might even combine Presentation with Business... which is a major no no in a lot of circles but, again, may be perfect for the need in question.
Basically, the problem you are solving should dictate the structure of the application. If other applications need to integrate with yours, then a Service Layer may need to be added. This might take the form of simple web forms which others can post data to or it might go further to be full on web services. There might even be situations where you want the service layer to be the primary go to location for multiple presentations.
You can get as complicated as you want, but a good rule of thumb is to keep it simple until
the complications become necessary.
In some designs, the service layer is not used by the presentation layer.
The service layer is called by other applications that want to use the business and data access layers in the application.
In a way, the service layer is another front-end separate from the presentation layer.
See the architectural diagram here. The users access the application through the presentation layer. And the external systems access the application through the services layer. The presentation layer and the services layer talk to the application facade in the business layer.
As an example of what those other "external systems" might be, web services and WCF services call the service layer. Some other web application could call this application's service layer in a web service call. This would be one way to ensure that both apps are applying the same business logic, and that any changes made to the business logic are reflected in both of the apps.
As Chris Lively points out, one shouldn't get carried away with creating layers. I would recommend only creating the layers that would be useful in your application. In my experience, the need for a service layer is not frequent, but the need for a business layer is very frequent.
The Service Layer is usually constructed in terms of discrete operations that have to be supported for a client.
For example, a Service Layer may expose Creating an Account. Whereas the Business Layer may consist of validating the parameters needed in creating an account, constructing data objects to be persisted, etc.
Oftentimes, the Service Layer uses a procedural or Transaction Script style code to orchestrate the business and/or logic layers.
Knowing this, you may realize that your Business Layer really is a Service Layer as well. At some point, the point from which you're asking this question being one such point, the distinction is mostly semantic.
From my perspective a service layer allows you to isolate your presentation layer from your business layer, in the same way the business and data access layer isolates you from how you persist the data.
Inside your business layer you'd put things that are pivotal to your 'business'. A contrived (and probably poorly conceived example) would be to have that be the place where say discounting prices on a product occur.
The service layer allows you to further seperate the interface from the business. Or even swap out other business layers depending on the changing scenarios of the business.
Not every application needs one though (a lot of variables go into that determination), too much architecture can introduce complexities your team may not need.
Have a look to what Randy Stafford says about Service Layer in the "P of EAA" Book
http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/serviceLayer.html
A Service Layer defines an
application's boundary [Cockburn PloP]
and its set of available operations
from the perspective of interfacing
client layers. It encapsulates the
application's business logic,
controlling transactions and
coor-dinating responses in the
implementation of its operations.
Simple. To expose your business logic to a client, use a service layer.
Ask yourself:
When changing the business logic, should the service layer change?
If the answer is "not always" then a service layer is needed.
I know this thread is old, but one useful thing I've done in the Service layer is to handle transactions (Business Layer shouldn't need to know how to handle rollbacks, ordering of operations, etc.).
Another thing I've done is used it to translate between domain entities and DTOs. The Business layer deals with the domain model, but I've passed the data back to the presentation layer in the form of DTOs (in some cases it wasn't practical to expose the whole domain model to the presentation layer for various reasons), so the service layer handles this mapping.
Ultimately, I see the business layer as more fine grained, whereas the Service layer can be more coarse in that it could call multiple operations in the BLL, and order calls within one service call.
Yes, and I would also note on that the service layer is a good place for authentication, both role based and user based.