We have an Entity Framework model that is used by two different silverlight applications. The validation rules are very similar in the two contexts, but differ slightly.
For example, a regular user in one of the applications cannot input time that is in the future, but an administrator in the other application can put time that is in the future.
How would you handle designing this application? Two ideas we came up with:
Creating two entirely separate models, so that each can be independent
Share the same model, but put a "Context" property on our base Entity class, so that the validation rules can validate differently where necessary.
I have never tried it, but what about extending or creating new validation attributes that uses a different validation depending on the authorisation role of the user?
Those sound like business rules which should be seperate from data access. You should be able to use the same EDM but implement the business rules in the business layer, not the data layer.
Related
Since the native-cloud applications or microservices architecture requires decentralized data model (each microservices has its own database), and universal data model is centralized data model
So, how we have microservices architecture with universal data model patterns?
Is there any reference or implementation of universal data model and microservices?
In general the two concepts are not compatible. Using a universal data model for all of your services would clash with a couple of key ideas behind using Microservices, e.g. Polyglot Persistence, separate development & deployment of each service. Also, let's not forget that the "Data Model Resource Book" was last updated in 2009.
However, if you must combine the two approaches, e.g. because management insists on it, you can encapsulate all access to the universal data model by a dedicated service and make your other services dependent on it.
Some good thoughts on the subject can be found here: http://plainoldobjects.com/2015/09/02/does-each-microservice-really-need-its-own-database-2/
Yes to #Fritz's point -- universal data modeling and microservices are really two different concepts and are very difficult if not impossible to be used together. I would like to add that the reasoning for polyglot persistence is also because of how the data should be modeled. Microservices allow the use of different data stores that can best model the data according to their domain.
To elaborate more, I don't think it would do justice to mention microservices and data modeling but not domain driven design. From my experience, domain driven design really helps in thinking about services, their responsibilities, and their right to exist. For instance, I found it often to be the case that there are usually a collection of services that carries out a particular domain functionality. An example could be an e-commerce application that have payments, shopping carts, etc. These could be separated into different "bounded contexts" based on domain driven design terminology.
With the different bounded contexts, each microservice no longer sees the same concept in the system the same, so in effect, there is no real universal data model. The easiest example that I can think of to show this, is when you also want reporting on the metrics in the system. If the example was an ecommerce application, the notion of a transaction in the orders microservice are going to be different than transactions in a reporting service. The reporting service for instance may want to know about transactions at a sub-level such as the profit or revenue generated for a particular order instead of the particular line items in an order. However, in the perspective of the orders service, the order details such as the line items and the address of the individual that made the purchase are probably important and should be known. This should then require two different data models.
With respect to domain modeling, I may be a bit extreme but I would go as far as saying that if there are multiple services sharing the same data source, they should really be the same service; there should be only one service for a single data source. My arguments for that would be that the domain hasn't been properly modeled and that the coupling makes it different to evolve any one service if there are multiple services that relies on a single data source. The case could be that one service requires the schema of the data source to change while the other one does not but still is required to accommodate the schema change. Hope this helps!
I am Java programmer who tries to investigate CakePHP - currently I have problem with application structure/design. I could not understand where to put core logic of application.
When I am developing in JavaEE, common approach looks like following:
Model classes are simple beans which represent data entities (products, people etc) - mostly like data structures with getters/setters;
Controller classes are simple enough classes which aggregate necessary data and inject them into dedicated View template which is then sent to user;
DAO (DataAccessObject) or Repository classes are ones which can load and store entities into database;
Service classes are usually singletons which contains certain business-logic methods - these are called by controllers, by other services or by scheduled actions, on the other hand they themselves call DAO / Repository methods to fetch or modify data.
For example if I have entities Person, Product and Order, when user selects some product and clicks "put it into my cart/basket" new Order for this Person should be created and this Product should be added to this Order (we may check that Person is not bad debtor and that Product is present at store etc.) - all this work is performed in methods of OrderService called by some controller.
Usually some kind of IOC (Inversion of Control) is used so that all services and controllers have links to necessary services etc.
Now I am slightly bewildered about how this all is done in CakePHP. Where should I put this business-logic etc. ?
In CakePHP the model layer is made up from collection of active record instances, called AppModel. They combine the storage-related logic (that you would usually put in DAOs and/or Repositories) with business logic (what usually went into your "models").
Any other domain related logic (from your Service) becomes part of controller.
If you want to know, how you are supposed to implement domain business logic in CakePHP, just look up articles which praise active record pattern.
Personal opinion
CakePHP and CodeIgniter are two of the worst frameworks in PHP. They are filled with bad practices.
Actually, if you were doing correct-ish MVC, then model layer would contain all of the business logic and everything that is related to it. Model layer is made of DAOs, Repositories, Domain Objects (what you call "models") and Services.
While your descriptions of Java-based code indicates, that you are kinda moving in that direction, CakePHP is not even remotely close to it.
Then again, it might be that my understanding of MVC is just wrong.
The controllers should only contain logic relevant for the whole thing being a web application. Your business logic belongs into the models. I think it is one of the basic mistakes that you find in many cakePHP applications, that to much logic is put into the controllers, which actually belongs into the models.
In CakePHP. the "M" is just a bunch of Data Models instead of Domain Models.
In my opinion. CakePHP is made for RAD development. It is not a good fit for enterprise applications.
My opinion though.
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.
In a RIA application you are supposed to put as much business logic as possible outside of the RIA layers (flash/silverlight etc). What is the reason behind this? Any logic that goes into the presentation tier gets the benefit of executing faster...
Is this because the RIA technology will most likely need a face lift down the road and you will have to rewrite all the business logic?
I'm not sure I agree with your premise, that you're "supposed" to put business logic outside the client. You are supposed to move the business logic outside the UI layer, but there are typically still a couple client-side layers left before you hit the back-end web service. A typical Silverlight application, for instance, is based on the MVVM model, which prescribes a View that has no business logic, a ViewModel which has a pretty good chunk of validation and business logic, and a model, which has the rest. And all of that is on the client side.
On the other hand, you really need a business logic layer on the server as well. You can't rely on a client-side application to filter out all the bad data: someone might be running an old version of the client, or a different client entirely, or might be trying to hack your system.
In other words, ideally, you should have your business logic and validations executing on both the client and on the server: on the client, because you need responsiveness, and on the server, because you need security. The question is how to get this, and there aren't any perfect answers.
One approach commonly taken in Silverlight applications (I'm less familiar with Flash) is to use WCF RIA services, which allows you to create validations in one place that are executed on both the client and server. Even if you're not using the WCF RIA Services framework, you can still get much of the same effect by linking to the source code of your validation/business logic classes on both the client and on the web service -- it's more work, but still probably less work than writing your validations twice and keeping them in sync manually.
Business Logic is a cross-cutting concern.
Will your users be entering dates? If so, the interface needs to know they are dates to give them a picker, and to prevent invalid entries. Maybe even restrict entries to a range. That is business logic. How can you keep it out and still have a meaningful interface?
Will users be entering at any time a US State or a Province? If so, the drop-down list will have to be populated, and that means the UI "knows" about foreign keys.
Will there be fields the user can see but not change? Why or why not? That is business logic. Will there be limits to what certain users can do based on certain conditions? That is business logic.
This does not mean the UI knows about all business logic, of course, many data-moving operations have nothing to do with the UI.
But in the end the question is not how to keep BL out of the UI, you cannot do that, the question is which kinds of BL will be in the UI. That tends to come down to types, ranges of values, allowed operations, and so forth.
So either the UI gets all of that information from a lower tier, or some of it is reproduced in the UI layer.
So, one reason is maintainability. If the client is already distributed everywhere, you don't need to require a re-install or re-download when a simple business rule changes. Simply deploy the change to the back-end and you are all set.
It also lets you do things like hide your database behind your firewall. If all of your business logic is in the front-end, it is likely that you need to expose the database publicly so that the business logic can be executed on the client.
But I fear that "business logic" is an overloaded term. What is "business logic"? The right architecture is the architecture that makes most sense for your application and needs.
As #Ken Smith said, you should certainly avoid business logic in your UI layer. This is for testability, maintainability, designablity, etc. But this does not mean that everything goes to the back end, especially in a RIA app with significant UI rules. In an MVVM app (Silverlight) or Presentation Model app (Flex), you put UI BEHAVIOR in the ViewModel or PresentationModel layer. Then, you put whatever level of business logic makes sense in your Model. That business logic might just be some validation. It might be more. That is dependent upon your architecture.
I have some trouble getting my head around how to implement more complex operations in a Domain Service in RIA Services. This is all Silverlight 4, VS 2010 and .Net Framework 4 in Beta 2.
Goal
I wish I could create an operation on my LinqToEntitiesDomainService that would have a signature something like this:
public UnwieldyOperationResult PerformUnwieldyOperation( UnwieldyOperationParameters p );
The idea is that this operation takes a colleciton of parameters and performs rather complex operations which would update different instances and types of the entities that are otherwise manipulated through the DomainService CRUD functionality.
Problem
The immediate problem i hit is that does not seem to be allowed to pass the custom type as parameter to the method, and I suppose something along those lines go for the return value. I want to encapsulate the operation parameters in a DTO for clarity, and this unwieldy operation does not have any corresponding entity in the legacy database that I have wrapped with Entity Framework 4.0 model, which I am in turn basing the Domain Service on.
Is a domain service supposed to deal with only the types that are entities in the underlying EF model? Is it not designed to expose more complex operations like my UnwieldyOperation?
If so, can I build another service somehow that allows both the operation signature and to manipulate the entity framework?
I have understood that only one Domain Service can handle an entity from the model. This has led me to cram all the CRUD and now also the UnwieldyOperation into one Domain Service, although my first idea was to split the service into smaller parts.
If I'd get the operation to work with parameters and return value in the Domain Service, my next wish would be to have the entities that are already loaded in the domain context at the client refresh themselves.
Is there any efficient mechanism for such a thing?
How would you go about to do that?
What I have so far...
In short, this is what I have so far:
I have wrapped an existing legacy database
with an Entity Framework 4.0 model with as
little extra padding/code as
possible. This means right-click, add and generate from database.
I have implemented the simpler CRUD operations in the DomainService and I am using them successfully to display and edit straight forward data. I have some encapsulation of logic through ViewModels in client but I expose the Entity classes directly, but I think this is unrelated to my problem/question.
I have realized that I can't add the UnwieldyOperation in an as straight forward manner as I initially thought... Also I suspect/hope that I have misunderstood some aspects of the Domain Service mechanism, which has led me to the current situation.
One way to go?
Writing this down in a question like this gives me the idea that perhaps I'd go in this direction:
LegacyModelService expose the CRUD operations as I have already done.
Expose the Unwieldy operations in another service. Should I make that a RIA Doamin Service or just plain WCF?
Access the Entity Framework model from the new UnwieldyOperationsService and manipulate the data layer there.
Explicitly reload or refresh the client domain context for the LegacyModelService at the client to reflect the changes that may have resultet from the UnwieldyOperation. What would be a good way get this done?
Check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee707373%28VS.91%29.aspx for naming conventions over and above simple CRUD, maybe Invoke or Named Update operations would be suitable?