I have started using Entity Framework Code First for the first time and am impressed by the way in which our greenfield application is being built around the domain rather than around the relational database tables (which is how I have worked for years).
So, we are building entities in C# that are being reflected in the database every time we do a new migration.
My question is this: should these same entities (i.e. designed with Entity Framework in mind) play the same role as entities in Domain Driven Design (i.e. representing the core of the domain)?
Object-Relational Mapping and Domain-Driven Design are two orthogonal concerns.
ORM
An ORM is just here to bridge the gap between the relational data model residing in your database and an object model, any object model.
An Entity as defined by EF concretely means any object that you wish to map some subpart of your relational model to (and from). It turns out that the EF creators wanted to give a business connotation to those by naming them Entities, but in the end nothing forces you that way. You could map to View Models for all it cares.
DDD
From a DDD perspective, there's no such thing as "an Entity designed with EF in mind". A DDD Entity should be persistence ignorant and bear no trace of any ORM. The domain layer has no interest in how, where, whether or when its objects are stored.
Where the two meet
The only point where the two orthogonal concepts intersect is when the object model targeted by your ORM mapping is precisely your domain model. This is possible with what EF calls "Code first" (but should really be named regular ORM), by pointing to your DDD Entities in separate EF mapping files living in a non-domain layer, and refraining from using EF artifacts such as data annotations directly in your Entity classes. This is not possible when using Database First, because the DDD "purity" part of the deal wouldn't be met.
In short, the terms collide, but they should really be conceptually considered as two different things. One is the domain object itself and the other is a pointer that can indicate the same bunch of code, but it could point to pretty much anything else.
They shouldn't be the same as they're designed for different purposes. An ORM entity is a facade for 1 or more tables, its purpose is to simulate OOP on top of relational tables. A Domain Entity is about defining a Domain concept. If your Domain Entity turns out to be just a data structure, then you can reuse it as an EF entity, but that's just one case.
A DDD app never knows about EF or ORM. It only knows about a Repository. Hence, your Domain Objects (DO) don't know either about EF. You can choose to consider them EF entities, as an implementation detail, BUT... you should do that ONLY after your DOs are defined and their use cases implemented. You should defer as much as possible the implementation of persistence (use in-memory repos (lists) for devel).
When you reach that point you'll know if you can reuse your DO for ORM purposes or if you'll need other ways (such as a memento).
Note that a design of a DO while driven by the Domain, it should take into consideration the persistence issue, but it shouldn't be influenced by it i.e don't design your DO according to the db schema. The persistence strategy can be different for each DO and it might involve or not an ORM.
If you're using Event Sourcing for a DO, ORM doesn't exist. Same for serialized objects. It matters a lot how an object will be used by the app (updating and querying), that's why I've said you should defer the persistence implementation. For a lot of DOs you won't need a rdbms (even if you're using it) so an ORM entity will look more like a KeyValuePair (Id => serialized data).
In conclusion, they are different things for different purposes, that might look identical for some cases (CRUD scenarios).
I would say, they can be the same.
Sometimes there is no need to support two models. When you follow code first approach, your entities model your domain, your infrastructure (ORM) separates domain and persistence layers.
It might be reasonable to maintain two models if you have legacy database and have to maintain it.
There are two other SO questions that can be helpful:
Repository pattern and mapping between domain models and Entity Framework
Advice on mapping of entities to domain objects
Well.That's The Approach i use.And I've seen a lot of others doing the same.Now am using The Onion Architecture/Pattern to Create my application and making Everything rely on the domain entities made my life easier.because whenever i want to change for example the Layer that deal with my database ,i can do that without changing the UI layer(ASP.NET MVC app,WPF app...etc)...I suggest doing the same.
let's wait for other posts
I agree with what MikeSW said (3rd Answer).When you design your domain entities,you should do that without caring about who will consume those entities (ORMs or any other technology serving whatever purpose).design them with one idea in mind : they will be reusable and they will not need to be changed in the future (hopefully)
Related
There are classes that are entities according to DDD, and there are classes that have #javax.persistence.Entity annotation. Should they be the same classes? Or should JPA entities act just as a mechanism for a mapper (https://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/dataMapper.html) to load DDD entities from a database (and store them) and be kept outside the domain model?
Would it make a difference if database metadata were separated and stored externally (for example, in XML)? If such classes are entities, where is the boundary? I think classes generated from XSD (for example, with JAXB) or even from database with MyBatis Generator are not entities as understood in DDD.
That's an implementation detail really. They could be or they could not depending on the flexibility of your ORM. For instance, if your ORM allows to map your domain objects without polluting them with persistence concerns then that's the approach that requires the less overhead and which I'd go for.
On the other hand, if your ORM is not flexible enough then you could go for a pragmatic hybrid approach where your AR and it's state are two different classes and where the state class is simple enough to easily be mapped. Note that the AR would still be responsible to protect it's state here and the state object wouldn't be accessed directly from outside the AR. The approach is described by Vaughn Vernon here.
Your JPA entities should be the domain entities. Why?
Your domain entities should express some strong constraints, e.g. by
Having parameterized constructors
Not exposing all setters
Do validation on write operations
If possible, a domain entity should always remain a valid business entity.
By introducing some kind of mapper, you introduce a possibility to automagically write arbitrary stuff into your domain entities, which basically renders your constraints useless.
The other option would be enforcing the same constraints on JPA and domain entities which introduces redundancy.
Your best bet is keeping your JPA entities as ORM-agnostic as possible. Using Hibernate, this can be done using a configurating class or XML file. But I am no Java EE/JPA guy, so it's hard for me to give a good implementation advice.
After some more experience with JPA and microservices, I would say that I would most likely not separate them when using JPA, unless there's a reason that makes me do otherwise. On the other hand, entities in a single bounded context do not necessarily have to be only JPA entities. It's possible to have both entities mapped by JPA implementation and entities mapped from DTOs using other technologies (like JSON mappers) or manually.
I agree that both ways are possible. After programming some applications with DDD in mind, I find that this heuristic works well:
If you start from having an entity and not having JPA, it will probably be too hard to refactor an entity so that it can be used by ORM framework, so keep them separate
If you start from scratch, it is worth not distinguishing DDD entities from JPA entities
I'm trying to implement fully valid persistence ignorance with little effort. I have many questions though:
The simplest option
It's really straightforward - is it okay to have Entities annotated with Spring Data annotations just like in SOA (but make them really do the logic)? What are the consequences other than having to use persistance annotation in the Entities, which doesn't really follow PI principle? I mean is it really the case with Spring Data - it provides nice repositories which do what repositories in DDD should do. The problem is with Entities themself then...
The harder option
In order to make an Entity unaware of where the data it operates on came from it is natural to inject that data as an interface through constructor. Another advantage is that we always could perform lazy loading - which we have by default in Neo4j graph database for instance. The drawback is that Aggregates (which compose of Entities) will be totally aware of all data even if they don't use them - possibly it could led to debugging difficulties as data is totally exposed (DAO's would be hierarchical just like Aggregates). This would also force us to use some adapters for the repositories as they doesn't store real Entities anymore... And any translation is ugly... Another thing is that we cannot instantiate an Entity without such DAO - though there could be in-memory implementations in domain... again, more layers. Some say that injecting DAOs does break PI too.
The hardest option
The Entity could be wrapped around a lazy-loader which decides where data should come from. It could be both in-memory and in-database, and it could handle any operations which need transactions and so on. Complex layer though, but might be generic to some extent perhaps...? Have a read about it here
Do you know any other solution? Or maybe I'm missing something in mentioned ones. Please share your thoughts!
I achieve persistence ignorance (almost) for free, as a side effect of proper domain modeling.
In particular:
if you correctly define each context's boundary, you will obtain small entities without any need for lazy loading (that, actually becomes an antipattern/code smell in a DDD project)
if you can't simply use SQL into your repository, map a set of DTO to your db schema, and use them into factories to initialize entity classes.
In DDD projects, persistence ignorance is relevant for the domain model itself, not for repositories, factories and other applicative code. Indeed you are very unlikely to change the ORM and/or the DB in the future.
The only (but very strong) rational behind persistence ignorance of the domain model is separation of concerns: in the domain model you should express business invariants only! Persistence is an infrastructural concern!
For example without persistence ignorance (and with lazy loading) the domain model should handle possible exceptions from the db, it's complexity grows and business rules are buried under technological details.
Personally I find it near impossible to achieve a clean domain model when trying to use the same entities as the ORM.
My solution is to model my domain entities as I see fit and ensure that any ORM entities don't leak outside of the repositories. This means that my repositories accept and return domain entities.
This means you lose "most of your ORM goodness" and end up "using your ORM for simple CRUD operations".
Both of these trade-offs are fine for me, I would rather have a clean domain model that I can use, rather than one polluted with artefacts from my DB or ORM. It also cuts down the amount of time I spend "wrestling with my ORM" to zero.
As a side-note, I find document databases a much better fit for DDD.
Once you will provide persistence mapping in you domain model:
your code depends on framework. If you decided to change this framework, you want to change persistence layer and model layer source code - more work, more changes, more merging of code etc.
your domain model jar file depends on spring/nhibernate jars etc.
your classes become larger and larger how business code and persistence related code grows
I've to admit that I dont understand harder and hardest option.
We used separated interfaces and implementations for domain entities. Provide separated mapping files using Hibernate along with repositories.
Entities are created using factory (or repository later), identifier is generated within persistence layer, entity does not need it until it's being persisted.
Lazy loading is provided by special implementation of List once:
mapping of an entity contains it
entity/aggregate is fetched from persistence layer
The only issue is related to transaction as when you use lazy-loaded collection out of transaction scope, it fails.
I would follow the simplest option unless I ran into a stone wall. There are also pitfalls such as this when you adopt pi principle.
Somtimes some compromises are acceptable.
public class Order {
private String status;//my orm does not support enum
public Status status() {
return Status.of(this.status);
}
public is(Status status) {
return status() == status;//use status() instead of getStatus() in domain model
}
}
I stumbled upon the following two articles First and Second in which the author states in summary that ORM Entities and Domain Entities shouldn't be mixed up.
I face exactly this problem at the moment as I code with EF 6.0 using the Code First approach. I use the POCO classes as entities in the EF as well as my domain/business objects. But I find myself frequently in the situation where I define a property as public or a navigation property as virtual only because the EF Framework forces me to do so.
I don't know what to take as the bottom line of the two articles? Should I really create for example a CustomerEF class for the entity framework and a CustomerD for my domain. Then create a repository which consumes CustomerD maps it to CustomerEF do some queries and than maps back the received CustomerEF to CustomerD. I thought EF is all about mapping my domain entities to the data.
So please give me some advice. Do I overlook an important thing the EF is able to provide me with? Or is this a problem which can not completely solved by the EF? In the latter case what is a good way to manage this problem?
I agree with the general idea of these posts. An ORM class model is part of a data access layer first and foremost (even if it consists of so-called POCOs). If any conflict of interests arises between persistence and business logic (or any other concern), decisions should always be made in favor of persistence.
However, as software developers we always have to balance between purism and pragmatism. Whether or not to use the persistence model as a domain model depends on a number of factors:
The size/coherence of the development team. When the whole team knows that properties can be public just because of ORM requirements, but should not be set all over the place, it may not be a big deal. If everybody knows (and obeys) that an ID property is not to be used in business logic, having IDs may not be a big deal. A scattered, unexperienced or undisciplined team may need more stringent segregation of code.
The overlap between business logic concerns and persistence concerns. Object oriented design thrives when a class model sticks to SOLID principles. But these principles are not necessarily at odds with persistence concerns. I mean that although the concerns are different, in the end their resultant requirements may be quite similar. For instance, both concerns may require valid object state and correct associations.
There can be use cases, however, in which objects temporarily need to be in a state that absolutely shouldn't be stored. This may be a reason to work with dedicated domain classes. Another reason may be that the entity model just can't fulfill the best segmentation of responsibilities. For instance, a business process "blacklisting customer" may require data that is scattered over so many entity objects that new domain classes must be designed that can encapsulate the data and the methods working on them. In other words: doing this by entities would violate the Tell Don't Ask principle.
The need for layering. For instance, if the data access layer targets different database vendors it may have to consist of interchangeable parts that are vendor-specific (e.g. to account for subtle differences in data types between Oracle and Sql Server or to exploit vendor-specific features). Using the persistence model as domain model would probably bleed vendor-specific implementations into the business logic. That would be really bad. There the data access layer should be precisely that, a layer.
(Very trivial) The amount of data. Creating objects takes time and resources. When "many" objects are involved in a business case it may just be too expensive to build both entity objects and domain objects.
And more, undoubtedly.
So I would always try to be a pragmatist. If entity classes do a decent job, go for it. If the mismatch is too large, create a business domain for appropriate parts of the business logic. I would not slavishly follow a (any) design pattern just because it is a good pattern. Contrary to what is said in the post, it requires a lot of maintenance to map an entity model onto a business model. When you find yourself creating myriads of business classes that are almost identical to entity classes it's time to rethink what you're doing.
I am trying to model a database that is badly designed. The POCO objects I came up using Entity Framework(EF) do not represent the business entities accurately as I am limited by bad DB design . I am planning on having my business entities defined separately and have them map to POCO. So it would be something like:
Business Entities ==> POCO Entities ==> EF.
Do you see any disadvantages by doing this?
As such I am very new to EF and from what I have learned so far, it seems EF works best when the DB is perfect. Otherwise we end up with either customizing EDMX by hand or some other workarounds.
Thanks,
Manav
How you handle this depends on where the hard work is in your application. You want to use an approach that maximizes the maintainability of your code.
If you have not too much transactional data capture (i.e. CRUD operations) and lots of complex business rules, then using an abtraction layer of POCOs will help to keep your complex business logic clean and manageable. If on the other hand, your business rules are nearly non-existent and your app is really just about capturing lots of records and storing them away in a database, then your abstraction layer becomes just more code to have to maintain.
I know similar questions have been asked before.
I am starting with a set of xsd-generated data objects (plus the db model is there) and need to persist these almost 1:1 to a single SQL Server database. The number of entities is small (10), and the logic required for the db insert/update/delete (mostly upserts) is thin (albeit there is some).
I am wondering which approach is best?
no ORM with SQL Server stored procs, probably generated using T4
or something like codeSmith
Entity Fx, generate entities from Db, and manually map the xsd
entities to EFx entities at runtime
Entity Fx, generate edmx file from DB, then use the POCO approach
and directly persist the xsd-generated entities (after handcoding
the ObjectContext derived class I suppose)
code-only EFx approach (looks like one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever seen to me)
anything else?
I am especially keen in terms of maintenance - what happens if a property is added to the XSD-generated entities, how much effort does each approach take.
I would be tempted to go with 1, since the logic is slim and there are no complex mappings (m:n). But it would be possible the Data model will evolve to a more complex domain model, and we don't want to reimplement anything then.
How bad does each of the EFx approaches hurt in terms of run-time performance?
Your decision in this case should be informed largely by the future direction of your application.
You should consider Option 3 primarily if you do not want your Entities to have any dependency on the Entity Framework assembly (System.Data.Entity). If you think you might want to distribute or share your Entity/DAL/BL layer as an independent assembly with another application, consider option 3. This will allow you to keep your Entities separated from your persistence implementation. If, however, you don't expect to have multiple persistence implementations and don't care about the dependency on the EF assemblies, options 1 or 2 will work just fine.
On a side note, given the limited persistence logic required, be sure to look into compiled queries in Entity Framework for a big performance improvement.