I'm developing a WPF click once application using Prism v4, and MEF (MVVM pattern). I have multiple modules that reside in their own assemblies.
I'm trying to figure out where to place my model objects.
Would you place them in the assembly where they're primarily used (even though they could be used in other assemblies), or would you create an assembly to house all of the models (to be more easily used in other programs)? I'm leaning towards the latter but that brings be to the next question below...
How would you go about distinctly separating model objects, who are populated from different databases / servers - do you clump them all together in the same assembly / namespace or separate them into different namespaces / assemblies? I'm trying to prevent issues down the road due to a bad decision starting this project and would appreciate anyones feedback.
I put the model objects in their own assembly. This promotes reuse as well as separation, as its much more difficult to "pollute" the model with presentation related code.
As for your second question:
How would you go about distinctly separating model objects, who are populated from different databases / servers - do you clump them all together in the same assembly / namespace or separate them into different namespaces / assemblies?
If you're planning to have models that are populated from multiple sources, I would personally put the Model definitions in one assembly, then use a DAL (in separate assemblies) per data source. This keeps the model definitions separate from the data access, which in turn is still presentation-neutral.
If the Model will always be populated from a single data source, then keeping this together (but separating via namespaces) is probably a simpler option.
Related
I am learning some patterns, Unity of work / repository... There are some examples on web, but no one connects to more than one database.
In my applications almost always I have the need to get some object from a database (for example users) and some other object from another, how can I use the patterns ? (Since I am a novice on this subject an explicit example is a must)
Thank you!
As a general reference I advise you and anyone interested to visit http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/index.html
which has a collection of UML and explanation over the most common Design Pattern for enterprises software
In your specific case Unity of work is particularly suited to work along with Data Mapper and Identity Map. I guess to understand 100% unity of work one must master also the other 2 pattern.
To answer your question I think you can create a unity of work and save it in a registry, so it is available all over the application. The unity must be a singleton since you need to ensure a central gateway to communicate with the database. Inside your unity of work you will have an identity map which is a collection of valued Objects in memory representing your model which is responsible to maintain the object states during all the application's operations. The unity will be used by your service layer to perform CRUD operations over the model and commit these changes.
To work with more databases I guess you need to leverage some sort of namespaced access to the object stored in the Identity map. You have the choice where to namespace: unity of work or identity map. The decision is really up to your application and use cases. You might need to connect to different DBs for splitting responsibilities between read and write or trying to integrate heterogeneous data sources.
An alternative would be to inject the DB object into the unity of work methods, in this case the application has 100% control over which database is used.
The repository pattern as far as I understand helps you to abstract to the storage of you model and it is particularly useful when you are working with heterogeneous data sources of you must provide such a flexibility to your application. Therefore I guess it is quite different from unity of work and Data Mapper layer.
I am confused.Please guide me anyone.
Is it mandatory to use any ORM tools(EF or Linq2SQL) when building an application in MVVM pattern?
Right now my application returns dataset using straight queries to like "select * from table"
Can I use dataset/datatable to List and then observable collection?or we need to have EF or L2S.
I am confused to kick start in MVVM
There's no reason you can't build your own Model layer, if that's what you want to do. The nice thing about modern design patterns is that they are generally agnostic toward what you use to fill each part.
I would build specific, separated classes for all your data access code, to keep that first M separate.
An overarching principle of patterns like MVVM and MVC are to separate your various concerns. This helps in so many ways - including, specifically, to support your ability to use your own data access (Model) while using the general pattern.
Ideally, you would write your code such that if you decided to move to Entity Framework in the future, you could do so without much change in the rest of the code. Rather - without any change in the rest of the code.
You can write your data access using the Repository pattern, using your custom classes that execute your hand-written SQL and produce classes that your View and ViewModel can deal with. With the Repository being the main place where your other code interacts, if you switch to EF or anything else in the future, you know you don't have to change any of your View or ViewModel code.
I'm a newbie with WPF/MVVM/Entity Framework and it's a lot of concepts to handle simultaneously.
I'm creating a WPF app with only one main View, which is splitted in 2 parts : 1 UserControl for a Master view of my data, another userControl for the detailed view. All data is stored in database generated via Entity Framework entity model.
So far I managed to do what I wanted (I use MVVM light) : databinding, commands, eventToCommand... I use following architecture in 1 VS project : 1 folder for Views, 1 for ViewModels, and 1 for Entities definition.
I pass data from master to detail userControl using MVVM Light Messaging, and when I try to update one entity, I encountered exception telling me that I can't update because I try to update one object linked to an ObjectContext (declared in MasterViewModel) with one object from another one (declared in DetailedViewModel)
How can I share EF ObjectContext between ViewModels? I read some stuff about repositories or UnitOfWork but I didn't really manage to see how I could use it in my case.
Subsidiary question : what's the best practice to access entities with EF and a n-tier app? Is the repository the answer? COnsidering the fact that classes already exists, should I have a "Model" folder in my solution architecture?
The answer is in the two design patterns you mention.
A Repository is a design pattern that helps you to create a single access point to your data. For example a CustomerRepository which has functions like GetById(int customerId), Update(Customer customer), Delete(Customer customer) and Add(Customer customer) and, depending on your specific flavor of implementing the pattern, other more specific functions for handling data that involves a customer.
In a regular application you would have a couple of Repositories that will give you access to different kinds of data. In a business function you would then use some of those repositories to build functionality.
Then the UnitOfWork pattern comes around, because this helps you to group a set of related operations. The Unit of Work keeps track of the changes until you save them to the database as a whole. (The ObjectContext in EF is an implementation of the UoW pattern)
In your example showing a master form and then loading and updating the details of one of those items, is a group of related operations that you want to update together.
This means that you should use one UoW for the master and the details view.
This is nice article which shows the basics of how an implementation of the Repository and UoW patterns could look like when using EF.
Here you can find an explanation of the Repository pattern and here of the Unit Of Work (those references are both from Patterns of Enterprise Applications, a really good book if you want to learn more)
I've been wondering what lives in the community for quite some time now;
I'm talking about big, business-oriented WPF/Silverlight enterprise applications.
Theoretically, there are different models at play:
Data Model (typically, linked to your db tables, Edmx/NHibarnate/.. mapped entities)
Business Model (classes containing actual business logic)
Transfer Model (classes (dto's) exposed to the outside world/client)
View Model (classes to which your actual views bind)
It's crystal clear that this separation has it's obvious advantages;
But does it work in real life? Is it a maintenance nightmare?
So what do you do?
In practice, do you use different class models for all of these models?
I've seen a lot of variations on this, for instance:
Data Model = Business Model: Data Model implemented code first (as POCO's), and used as business model with business logic on it as well
Business Model = Transfer Model = View Model: the business model is exposed as such to the client; No mapping to DTO's, .. takes place. The view binds directly to this Business Model
Silverlight RIA Services, out of the box, with Data Model exposed: Data Model = Business Model = Transfer Model. And sometimes even Transfer Model = View Model.
..
I know that the "it depends" answer is in place here;
But on what does it depend then;
Which approaches have you used, and how do you look back on it?
Thanks for sharing,
Regards,
Koen
Good question. I've never coded anything truly enterprisey so my experience is limited but I'll kick off.
My current (WPF/WCF) project uses Data Model = Business Model = Transfer Model = View Model!
There is no DB backend, so the "data model" is effectively business objects serialised to XML.
I played with DTO's but rapidly found the housekeeping arduous in the extreme, and the ever present premature optimiser in me disliked the unnecessary copying involved. This may yet come back to bite me (for instance comms serialisation sometimes has different needs than persistence serialisation), but so far it's not been much of a problem.
Both my business objects and view objects required push notification of value changes, so it made sense to implement them using the same method (INotifyPropertyChanged). This has the nice side effect that my business objects can be directly bound to within WPF views, although using MVVM means the ViewModel can easily provide wrappers if needs be.
So far I haven't hit any major snags, and having one set of objects to maintain keeps things nice and simple. I dread to think how big this project would be if I split out all four "models".
I can certainly see the benefits of having separate objects, but to me until it actually becomes a problem it seems wasted effort and complication.
As I said though, this is all fairly small scale, designed to run on a few 10's of PCs. I'd be interested to read other responses from genuine enterprise developers.
The seperation isnt a nightmare at all, infact since using MVVM as a design pattern I hugely support its use. I recently was part of a team where I wrote the UI component of a rather large product using MVVM which interacted with a server application that handled all the database calls etc and can honestly say it was one of the best projects I have worked on.
This project had a
Data Model (Basic Classes without support for InotifyPropertyChanged),
View Model (Supports INPC, All business logic for associated view),
View (XAML only),
Transfer Model(Methods to call database only)
I have classed the Transfer model as one thing but in reality it was built as several layers.
I also had a series of ViewModel classes that were wrappers around Model classes to either add additional functionality or to change the way the data was presented. These all supported INPC and were the ones that my UI bound to.
I found the MVVM approach very helpfull and in all honesty it kept the code simple, each view had a corresponding view model which handled the business logic for that view, then there were various underlying classes which would be considered the Model.
I think by seperating out the code like this it keeps things easier to understand, each View Model doesnt have the risk of being cluttered because it only contains things related to its view, anything we had that was common between the viewmodels was handled by inheritance to cut down on repeated code.
The benefit of this of course is that the code becomes instantly more maintainable, because the calls to the database was handled in my application by a call to a service it meant that the workings of the service method could be changed, as long as the data returned and the parameters required stay the same the UI never needs to know about this. The same goes for the UI, having the UI with no codebehind means the UI can be adjusted quite easily.
The disadvantage is that sadly some things you just have to do in code behind for whatever reason, unless you really want to stick to MVVM and figure some overcomplicated solution so in some situations it can be hard or impossible to stick to a true MVVM implementation(in our company we considered this to be no code behind).
In conclusion I think that if you make use of inheritance properly, stick to the design pattern and enforce coding standards this approach works very well, if you start to deviate however things start to get messy.
Several layers doesn't lead to maintenance nightmare, moreover the less layers you have - the easier to maintain them. And I'll try to explain why.
1) Transfer Model shouldn't be the same as Data Model
For example, you have the following entity in your ADO.Net Entity Data Model:
Customer
{
int Id
Region Region
EntitySet<Order> Orders
}
And you want to return it from a WCF service, so you write the code like this:
dc.Customers.Include("Region").Include("Orders").FirstOrDefault();
And there is the problem: how consumers of the service will be assured that the Region and Orders properties are not null or empty? And if the Order entity has a collection of OrderDetail entities, will they be serialized too? And sometimes you can forget to switch off lazy loading and the entire object graph will be serialized.
And some other situations:
you need to combine two entities and return them as a single object.
you want to return only a part of an entity, for example all information from a File table except the column FileContent of binary array type.
you want to add or remove some columns from a table but you don't want to expose the new data to existing applications.
So I think you are convinced that auto generated entities are not suitable for web services.
That's why we should create a transfer model like this:
class CustomerModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Country { get; set; }
public List<OrderModel> Orders { get; set; }
}
And you can freely change tables in the database without affecting existing consumers of the web service, as well as you can change service models without making changes in the database.
To make the process of models transformation easier, you can use the AutoMapper library.
2) It is recommended that View Model shouldn't be the same as Transfer Model
Although you can bind a transfer model object directly to a view, it will be only a "OneTime" relation: changes of a model will not be reflected in a view and vice versa.
A view model class in most cases adds the following features to a model class:
Notification about property changes using the INotifyPropertyChanged interface
Notification about collection changes using the ObservableCollection class
Validation of properties
Reaction to events of the view (using commands or the combination of data binding and property setters)
Conversion of properties, similar to {Binding Converter...}, but on the side of view model
And again, sometimes you will need to combine several models to display them in a single view. And it would be better not to be dependent on service objects but rather define own properties so that if the structure of the model is changed the view model will be the same.
I allways use the above described 3 layers for building applications and it works fine, so I recommend everyone to use the same approach.
We use an approach similar to what Purplegoldfish posted with a few extra layers. Our application communicates primarily with web services so our data objects are not bound to any specific database. This means that database schema changes do not necessarily have to affect the UI.
We have a user interface layer comprising of the following sub-layers:
Data Models: This includes plain data objects that support change notification. These are data models used exclusively on the UI so we have the flexibility of designing these to suit the needs of the UI. Or course some of these objects are not plain as they contain logic that manipulate their state. Also, because we use a lot of data grids, each data model is responsible for providing its list of properties that can be bound to a grid.
Views: Our XAML definitions of the views. To accommodate for some complex requirements we had to resort to code behind in certain cases as sticking to a XAML only approach was too tedious.
ViewModels: This is where we define business logic for our views. These guys also have access to interfaces that are implemented by entities in our data access layer described below.
Module Presenter: This is typically a class that is responsible for initializing a module. Its task also includes registering the views and other entities associated with this module.
Then we have a Data Access layer which contains the following:
Transfer Objects: These are usually data entities exposed by the webservices. Most of these are autogenerated.
Data Adapters such as WCF client proxies and proxies to any other remote data source: These proxies typically implement one or more interfaces exposed to the ViewModels and are responsible for making all calls to the remote data source asynchronously, translating all responses to UI equivalent data models as required. In some cases we use AutoMapper for translation but all of this is done exclusively in this layer.
Our layering approach is a little complex so is the application. It has to deal with different types of data sources including webservices, direct data base access and other types of data sources such as OGC webservices.
I created for a project a single class, that contains all access code to the database.
Is this a good practice , under the assumption that this class doesn't contain any logic, or should i use several classes? If yes, how should i partition my code? I use C# .Net.
Actually Under the concept of MVC framework, it is a good practice to create a different class for database access, seperate class for logic and seperate class for your views.
You are doing good if you are writing a seperate class for database access under the assumption that it does not contain any logic.
In Agile Developement there is a term named as Database Encapsulation Layers.
A database encapsulation layer hides the implementation details of your database, including their physical schemas, from your business code. In effect this layer provides your business objects with persistence services – the ability to read data from, write data to, and delete data from – data sources. Ideally your business objects should know nothing about how they are persisted, it just happens. Database encapsulation layers aren’t magic and they aren’t academic theories; database encapsulation layers are commonly used practice by both large and small applications as well as in both simple and complex applications. Database encapsulation layers are an important technique that every agile software developer should be aware of and be prepared to use.
An effective database encapsulation layer will provide several benefits:
-> It reduces the coupling between your object schema and your data schema, increasing your ability to evolve either one.
-> It implements all database-related code in one place.
-> It simplifies the job of application programmers.
-> It allows application programmers to focus on the business problem and Agile DBA(s) can focus on the database.
-> It gives you a common place to implement data-oriented business rules and logic.
-> It takes advantage of specific database features, increasing application performance.
Hope this helps.
If your database is quite small, say, only a couple of tables, you could write all your queries in one class. otherwise I would suggest that per Entity/Table one class. for example, StudentDao.class will only focus on the queries to database table "STUDENT", and TeacherDao.class will only contain queries to table "TEACHER". if you are gonna implement a complex business logic, you may want to have a service class, to weave StudentDao and TeacherDao together.
Unless your data access is very simple, probably not.
you probably shouldn't need to write this code yourself. Take a look at some Object Relational Mapping tools. NHibernate is a popular .Net solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHibernate
If you really do want to write it yourself look up design patterns in this area, like the Data Transfer Object pattern. http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/dataTransferObject.html
These are some of the suggestions while accessing database.
1.) Always keep your database access parameters in a properties file. Use a handler to get those data. Because when you change your database then you need not change your code just make a change in the properties file it's enough.
-- So here you need a handler class.
2.) Never create a single class (a god class) which performs all the actions. Disperse your behaviour in to different classes depending on the intent. For example Keep all read behavior in one class, Write behavior in another class ... so on.
3.) You can create a class which deals with connection creations and pooling stuff...
Hope this helps.