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.
Related
I'm building an application based on DDD and Hexagonal Architecture.
Hexagonal architecture suggests that you shouldn't, let's say, pollute your domain with logic of elsewhere, your Domain layer should be "pure" and only containing your business logic.
But what if I have a valueobject where I want to generate an ID from an external library? UUID for example.
This is not contaminating my domain, but still, I'm importing a third party in my Domain layer and it's supposed to be placed in the Infrastructure layer.
However, do this every time I want to do this kind of things for time formats, converters... it can become kinda tedious.
Are there exceptions on third party imports in the Domain layer? If so, on what depends?
What you guys think?
Many thanks
DDD states that what is business matter goes in the domain layer, what is not does not. If the ID generation is a business logic, then there is no problem in importing that library in your domain layer. It is actually part of your domain layer, although you are not maintaining that part yourself.
When we say the domain layer should remain "pure", it means that your business logic should not be contaminated with infrastructure or presentation concerns. If the ID generation is only for persistence concerns (surrogate key), then this is an infrastructure concern, and this generation should either be done by the persistence store, or the infrastructure adapter.
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
In a multilayered application what is the right place for DTOs (Data Transfer Objects)? There is such opinion DTO is for data storage layer to domain layer communication but inappropriate for domain layer to upper logical levels interaction.
I am deleloping an application with the following layers: data storage, domain, service, presentation. Then what's right way to link service and presentation layers? I suppose opening access to the domain objects from the outside of domain layer is an encapsulation breach, so only way to solve the task is using DTO, but I'm unsure.
Many people (especially DDD enthusiasts) say that DTO's are only for remote invocation, basically to encapsulate those remote objects.
That being said, I really prefer to separate my presentation layer from my service layer as explicitly as possible. The presentation layer needs a lot of isolation from the service layer. Especially with thicker clients being the new norm (Angular web sites, mobile devices, etc). This means that treating your service layer as a remote service is often a good investment. It will likely become a true remote interface over time anyway.
The UI/Service boundary is also usually the place where it is usually most difficult to determine contract breakdowns... Most UI frameworks do a horrible job of identifying breaking changes.
If you were to have a REST layer on top of your DDD App for CRUD, would you let the REST layer spit out domain model(in terms of data)(say for a GET)?
Generally, you'd want to be able to change your domain objects (for instance when you learn something new about the domain), without having to change a public interface/API to your system. Same thing the other way around: if a change is required to a public interface, you don't want to have to change your domain model.
So from this perspective I'd never expose my domain objects as-is over a public interface. Instead I'd create data transfer objects (DTO) that are part of the public interface. This way, changes to my domain and public api can change independently.
You should not expose the DDD model. This is absolutely correct, because a SOA frontend should not expose implementation details to clients. Your users should depend on a business function, not an implementation detail… But this assumes a nice design of several, maybe heterogeneous, applications united into a SOA bus.
I would like to add to the answer because the mention of a CRUD interface makes me think that this could be a case of SOA abuse where SOA principles are used to glue the layers of an application, instead of a network of applications. SOA is meant as a way for the enterprise to communicate its systems, it is not a way to implement MVC! So simple yet so misunderstood. For example, just because your front end GUI uses services to access the backend you do not have a "SOA application."… what ever that means.
If this is a case of SOA used to glue layers, please revise your design and use an appropriate design architecture for that level of abstraction. Otherwise you will misinterpret the recommendations found here about no exposing the DDD model and not using CRUDY, and you will surely end up creating a separate domain model for the services interface, that then you will have to map to the DDD , which is so complicated that you will need to use dozer and things like that to map the same thing with different names, and so forth until we end up with a bloated un maintainable mess…
.. just be careful.
-Alex
Redzedi is so right that we need a clarification....
Like everything, this is quite more complicated to do than to say. Serializing a complex domain model could be so difficult that you can end up either not putting any logic in the domain, the anemic model antipattern (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html), or having a separate anemic model for persistence, ie DTOs.
I don’t know what is worst, but both options are bad. You should put the logic that goes in the model in the model and you should be able to serialize directly everywhere.
In my experience using the domain model for many years, I believe that the best thing is a point in the middle. Yes, as Fowler and Evans state, business objects should carry logic, but not all (http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2009/07/15/the-anemic-domain-model-pattern/) a little anemia with a nice service layer is best.
For example, an invoice should know about its items and have a procedure to calculate its total, which depends on the items. But an invoice's item does not need to know about invoicing. So what happens when an item changes in cost, should it have a pointer back to the father invoice as a circular reference and call the invoice's calculate total procedure?
I believe not. I think that's a task for the service layer who should received the event first and then orchestrate the procedure, with out having to couple all the business objects together for implementation purposes and violating the business interaction rules, which is what a domain model is for.
-Alex
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.