Develop Reference

It is possible to use child class to implement Separation of concerns using EF Core?

My goal is async loading of related entities using DBContext.
Let imagine two projects. The first named MyApp.Domain and contains domain entities.
namespace MyApp.Domain
{
public class PlanPage
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
}
}
namespace MyApp.Domain
{
public class PlanPageDay
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public Guid PlanPageId { get; set; }
}
}
The second project named MyApp.Infrastructure.EntityFramework and contains configuration of projection entities to database. It also contains class which extends domain entity and implements Entity framework specific logic.
namespace MyApp.Infrastructure.EntityFramework.Models
{
public class PlanPageEntity : PlanPage
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _applicationDbContext;
protected PlanPageEntity(ApplicationDbContext applicationDbContext)
{
_applicationDbContext = applicationDbContext;
}
public ICollection<PlanPageDay>? Days { get; set; }
public async Task<ICollection<PlanPageDay>> GetDays()
{
return Days ??= await _applicationDbContext.PlanPageDays
.Where(pd => pd.PlanPageId == Id)
.ToListAsync();
}
}
}
The purpose of this example is simple. We separate infrastructure code from domain code. Look how do we plan to use this concept:
// Entity initializing code. Placing somewhere in domain logic.
var plan = new PlanPage(/*some constructor arguments*/);
// Entity loading code. Placing somewhere in infrastructure implementation.
public async Task<PlanPage> GetPlanPage(Guid id)
{
return await _applicationDbContext.Set<PlanPageEntity>().FindAsync(id);
}
Note that we tell to Entity framework to use child class (PlanPageEntity) so it can handle all specific things that it can.
The question is: Is it possible to configure the EF so that it allows us to use this concept?

As requested here's a little more details for my opinion stated in the comments.
The main reason why I think your current approach is a bad idea is that it violates the separation of concerns design principle: when you are mixing domain models with data access models, you make your domain logic completely dependent on how you model the data in your database. This quickly limits your options because the database may have some restrictions on how you can model your data that doesn't fit well with the domain logic you want to implement as well as making maintenance difficult. E.g. if you decide to split up one DB table into two then you might have a big task ahead of you in order to make your domain logic work with those two new models/tables. Additionally, making performance optimizations in your database easily becomes a nightmare if not thought through ahead of time - and you shouldn't spend time thinking of optimizing your system before it's necessary.
I know this is a little abstract since I don't know much about your domain but I'm sure I could find more arguments against it.
Instead, separating data access models (and in general all external data models) from your domain models makes it much easier to maintain: if you need to make some changes to your database, you simply need to update the logic that maps the data from your data access models to your domain model - nothing in your domain logic needs to change.
In the examples you have given, you have already logically separated your domain models and data access models into two separate projects. So why not follow through with that thought and separate the two with a binding/mapping layer in-between?

Is it possible to configure the EF so that it allows us to use this concept?
Yes. Essentially you have DTO's, and your Entities derive from your DTOs. So when you fetch an Entity you can return it directly. But if you wouldn't be able to attach a non-Entity, so you'd have to map it. It's going to be inconvenient, and like 99.999% of bespoke entity and repository designs, will be ultimately a waste of time.
This is somewhat similar to the what EF already does for you. Start with persistence-ignorant Entity classes, and introduce persistence-aware runtime subtypes for scenarios that require them, which is basically just Lazy Loading.

Repository pattern and localized lookup tables

I am trying to grabs the idea of the pattern repository and trying to get it implemented in database structures I've already set up in the past. I'm now trying to get the best practice to work with my lookup tables. I've created a test project to play around and this is my database model:
You can see that I have three tables for the lookups: Lookup, Language and LookupLanguage. Language table simply contains the languages.
Lookup tables holds the different types used throughout the models.
And LookupLanguage links the both tables together:
I've created anew project with all the models 1 to 1 to the database tables:
I also created a generic repository and a generic CrudService interface:
public interface ICrudService<T> where T : IsActiveEntity, new()
{
int Create(T item);
void Save();
void Delete(int id);
T Get(int id);
IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
IEnumerable<T> Where(Expression<Func<T, bool>> func, bool showDeleted = false);
void Restore(int id);
}
Now, according to the following post: When implementing the repository pattern should lookup value / tables get their own Repository? , the repository should hide the underlying database layer. So I think I need a new implementation of a service and/or repository to get the lookups, but then, where do I have to tell in which language I need to have the lookup?
Let's take the status (new, accepted, refused) from the company as an example.
The company model is as follow:
public partial class Company : IsActiveEntity
{
[Required]
[MaxLength(50)]
public string CompanyName { get; set; }
public System.Guid StatusGuid { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("StatusGuid")]
public virtual Lookup Status { get; set; }
}
I guess I don't need to have a separate implementation of a repository?
But I need a separate implementation CompanyService.
interface ICompanyService : ICrudService<Company>
{
IQueryable<LookupLanguage> GetStatuses(Guid languageguid);
LookupLanguage GetStatus(Guid statusguid, Guid languageguid);
}
Is this the correct approach, or do I miss something here?

Creating a Generic LookupRepository in your case in a better option because of your table schema and maintainence perspective.
I'm not sure whether you are using both Service Locator and Repository pattern or just Repository because of the name ICompanyService. But regardless, I agree that Repositories should not represent tables 1-1 always but they do most of the times.
The SO link you provided has a different table structure than yours. You have a generic lookup table vs the link has a separate table for each lookup. In the case where you have separate tables it makes sense to have the lookup repository method go with the entity repository since you will have a separate code to fetch the data for each lookup(as they have separate tables with different schema).
But in you case you have a single table that stores all the lookup types for each language and it makes sense to have a single LookupRepository that returns all the various types of lookups based on Language and LookupType. If you create each lookup method in separate entity repositories (like GetStatuses in CompanyRepository and GetStatuses in ContactRepository) you will have to repeat the logic in the method for each repository.
Think if you change the schema of the lookup table (say add a column) and you want to test all places the lookups are used it will be nightmare if you have lookup methods all over the place and pretty easy if you have one method in LookupRepository.
interface ILookupService : ICrudService<Lookup>
{
IQueryable<Lookup> GetStatuses(Guid languageguid, LookupType lookupType);
Lookup GetStatus(Guid statusguid, Guid languageguid, LookupType lookupType);
}

As regards your question, "Is this the correct approach" - this entirely depends on your specific needs.
What you have done doesn't seem to have any real issues. You have implemented the repository pattern using generics which is great. You are using interfaces for your repositories which allows for easier unit testing, also great!
One of your tags seems to indicate you are interested in the Entity Framework. You do not seem to be using that. The Entity Framework would simplify your code by creating the boiler plate classes for you. You can still use your repository pattern code with the classes created by the Entity Framework.
It seems that you are confusing the idea of a service and a repository. A repository is a general object which allows you to get data from a store without caring about the implementation. In your example, ICompanyService is a repository.

It is really controversial topic and there are different approaches to this problem. In our data logic we are not using repository pattern because we do not want to abstract most of the benefits of Entity Framework. Instead, we pass the context to the business logic which is already a combination of UoW / Repository pattern. Your approach is okay if you are going this way on all of your company services. However what I have seen so far, putting methods to the related services by their return values is the best approach to remind where they are. For instance if you want to get the company lookup, create a ILookupService and put GetLookUpsByCompany(int companyId) method to retrieve the company lookups.

I would argue with the linked response. Repositories ARE linked to database entities, considering the Entity Framework itself as a uow/repository implementation is a best example. On the other hand, services are for domain concerns and if there is a mismatch between your database entities and domain entities (you have two separate layers), services can help to glue the two.
In your specific case, you have repositories although you call them services. And you need a repository per database entity, that's just easier to implement and maintain. And also it helps to answer your question: yes, you need the extra repository for the linking table.
A small suggestion. You seem to have a generic query function that only accepts where clauses
IEnumerable<T> Where(Expression<Func<T, bool>> func, bool showDeleted = false);
If you already follow this route that allows arbitrary filtering expressions (which itself is a little arguable as someone will point out that you can' possibly guarantee that all technically possible filters can be executed by the database engine), why don't you allow all possible queries, including ordering, paging, etc:
IQueryable<T> Query { get; }
This is as easy to implement as your version (you just expose the dbset) but allows clients to perform more complicated queries, with the same possible concern that such contract is possibly too broad.

Localization is a presentation layer thing. The lower layers of your application should bother with it as little as possible.
I see two different kind of lookups: translations of coded concepts (Mr/Miss/Mrs) and translations of entity properties (company name maybe, or job titles or product names).
Coded concepts
I would not use lookup tables for coded concepts. There is no need to bother the lower layers at all with this. You will only need to translate them once for the entire application and create simple resource files that contain the translations.
But if you do wish to keep the translations in the database, a separate lookup repository for the codes or even per code system will sort of replace the resource file and serve you fine.
Entity properties
I can imagine different/nastier localization issues when certain entities have one or more properties that get translated in different languages. Then, the translation becomes part of the entity. I'd want the repository to cough up entity objects that contain all translations of the description, in a dictionary or so. Cause the business layer should not worry about language when querying, caching and updating relations. It should not ask the company repository for the Dutch version of company X. It should simply ask for company X and be served a Company object that contains its name in Dutch, English and French.
I've one more remark about the actual database implementation:
I think the lookup tables are distracting from the actual entities, to the point where you have forgotten to create a relation between person and person company. ;) I'd suggest putting all translations of entity properties in a single XML type column instead.
This illustrates why the repository should handle entities plus translations. If you were to make this storage layer level implementation change at some point, i.e. go from lookup tables to xml columns, the repository interfaces should remain the same.

My entities have only setters and getters but no methods - design failure -

I have read this once:
"Don't leave entities as bags of getters and setters and put their methods in another layer unless you have a good reason to"
My customer, order, ... objects just get the data from the SqlDataReaders. They have only getter and setter.
My first question is which design approach does this follow when someone implements methods in entities AND what are these methods doing?

This way of thinking comes from the Domain Driven Design community.
In DDD you create a Domain Model that captures the functionality that your users request. You design your entities as having functionality and the data they need for it. You group them together in aggregates and you have separate classes that are responsible for construction (Factories) and querying (Repositories).
If you only have getters/setters you have an 'Anemic Domain Model'. Martin Fowler wrote about it in this article.
The problem with an Anemic Domain model is that you have the overhead of mapping your database to objects but not the benefits of it. If you don't use your entities as a real domain model, why don't you just use a DataTable or something for your data and keep your business logic in separate functions? An Anemic Domain model is an anti-pattern that should be avoided.
You also mention that you map the entities yourself. This blog explains why using an Object-Relational Mapping tool can really help. If you use Entity Framework with a Code First approach you can write a clean domain model with both data and functionality and map it to your database without much hassle. Then you will have the best of both worlds.

When you have methods as part of your model, you should only include model specific type of logic. For example, consider a bank account:
public class Account {
public AccountId Id { get; set; }
public Person Customer {get; set; }
public void Credit(Money amount) { ... }
public void Debit(Money amount) { ... }
}
Credit and Debit are model-specific logic (you won't find them anywhere else in the application), and should be encapsulated in the Account class.
You also mentioned that you used SqlDataReader within your model classes to get the data from the database. This is a big anti-pattern. Here are some problems you will encounter with this:
Violating Single Responsibility Principle - The model is now in-charge of representing the data and getting the data from the db.
How about querying children in your model? It gets messy.
You won't be able to change your data-access as easily.
Keep the model lean. Put the data access logic in a repository, i.e. AccountRepository.

Repository Pattern without an ORM

I am using repository pattern in a .NET C# application that does not use an ORM. However the issue I am having is how to fill One-to-many List properties of an entity. e.g. if a customer has a list of orders i.e. if the Customer class has a List property called Orders and my repository has a method called GetCustomerById, then?
Should I load the Orders list within the GetCustomerById method?
What if the Order itself has another list property and so on?
What if I want to do lazy loading? Where would I put the code to load the Orders property in customer? Inside the Orders property get{} accessor? But then I would have to inject repository into the domain entity? which I don't think is the right solution.
This also raises questions for Features like Change Tracking, Deleting etc? So i think the end result is can I do DDD without ORM ?
But right now I am only interested in lazy loading List properties in my domain entities? Any idea?
Nabeel
I am assuming this is a very common issue for anyone not using an ORM in a Domain Driven Design? Any idea?

can I do DDD without ORM ?
Yes, but an ORM simplifies things.
To be honest I think your problem isn't to do with whether you need an ORM or not - it's that you are thinking too much about the data rather than behaviour which is the key for success with DDD. In terms of the data model, most entities will have associations to most another entities in some form, and from this perspective you could traverse all around the model. This is what it looks like with your customer and orders and perhaps why you think you need lazy loading. But you need to use aggregates to break these relationships up into behavioural groups.
For example why have you modelled the customer aggregate to have a list of order? If the answer is "because a customer can have orders" then I'm not sure you're in the mindset of DDD.
What behaviour is there that requires the customer to have a list of orders? When you give more thought to the behaviour of your domain (i.e. what data is required at what point) you can model your aggregates based around use cases and things become much clearer and much easier as you are only change tracking for a small set of objects in the aggregate boundary.
I suspect that Customer should be a separate aggregate without a list of orders, and Order should be an aggregate with a list of order lines. If you need to perform operations on each order for a customer then use orderRepository.GetOrdersForCustomer(customerID); make your changes then use orderRespository.Save(order);
Regarding change tracking without an ORM there are various ways you can do this, for example the order aggregate could raise events that the order repository is listening to for deleted order lines. These could then be deleted when the unit of work completed. Or a slightly less elegant way is to maintain deleted lists, i.e. order.DeletedOrderLines which your repository can obviously read.
To Summarise:
I think you need to think more about behaviour than data
ORM's make life easier for change tracking, but you can do it without one and you can definitely do DDD without one.
EDIT in response to comment:
I don't think I'd implement lazy loading for order lines. What operations are you likely to perform on the order without needing the order lines? Not many I suspect.
However, I'm not one to be confined to the 'rules' of DDD when it doesn't seem to make sense, so... If in the unlikely scenario that there are a number of operations performed on the order object that didn't require the order lines to be populated AND there are often a large number of order lines associated to an order (both would have to be true for me to consider it an issue) then I'd do this:
Have this private field in the order object:
private Func<Guid, IList<OrderLine>> _lazilyGetOrderLines;
Which would be passed by the order repository to the order on creation:
Order order = new Order(this.GetOrderLines);
Where this is a private method on the OrderRepository:
private IList<OrderLine> GetOrderLines(Guid orderId)
{
//DAL Code here
}
Then in the order lines property could look like:
public IEnumberable<OrderLine> OrderLines
{
get
{
if (_orderLines == null)
_orderLines = _lazilyGetOrderLines(this.OrderId);
return _orderLines;
}
}
Edit 2
I've found this blog post which has a similar solution to mine but slightly more elegant:
http://thinkbeforecoding.com/post/2009/02/07/Lazy-load-and-persistence-ignorance

1) Should I load the Orders list within the GetCustomerById method?
It's probably a good idea to separate the order mapping code from the customer mapping code. If you're writing your data access code by hand, calling that mapping module from the GetCustomerById method is your best option.
2) What if the Order itself has another list property and so on?
The logic to put all those together has to live somewhere; the related aggregate repository is as good a place as any.
3) What if I want to do lazy loading? Where would I put the code to load the Orders property in customer? Inside the Orders property get{} accessor? But then I would have to inject repository into the domain entity? which I don't think is the right solution.
The best solution I've seen is to make your repository return subclassed domain entities (using something like Castle DynamicProxy) - that lets you maintain persistence ignorance in your domain model.

Another possible answer is to create a new Proxy object that inherits from Customer, call it CustomerProxy, and handle the lazy load there. All this is pseudo-code, so it's to give you an idea, not just copy and paste it for use.
Example:
public class Customer
{
public id {get; set;}
public name {get; set;}
etc...
public virtual IList<Order> Orders {get; protected set;}
}
here is the Customer "proxy" class... this class does not live in the business layer, but in the Data Layer along with your Context and Data Mappers. Note that any collections you want to make lazy-load you should declare as virtual (I believe EF 4.0 also requires you to make props virtual, as if spins up proxy classes at runtime on pure POCO's so the Context can keep track of changes)
internal sealed class CustomerProxy : Customer
{
private bool _ordersLoaded = false;
public override IList<Order> Orders
{
get
{
IList<Order> orders = new List<Order>();
if (!_ordersLoaded)
{
//assuming you are using mappers to translate entities to db and back
//mappers also live in the data layer
CustomerDataMapper mapper = new CustomerDataMapper();
orders = mapper.GetOrdersByCustomerID(this.ID);
_ordersLoaded = true;
// Cache Cases for later use of the instance
base.Orders = orders;
}
else
{
orders = base.Orders;
}
return orders;
}
}
}
So, in this case, our entity object, Customer is still free from database/datamapper code calls, which is what we want... "pure" POCO's. You've delegated the lazy-load to the proxy object which lives in the Data layer, and does instantiate data mappers and make calls.
there is one drawback to this approach, which is calling client code can't override the lazy load... it's either on or off. So it's up to you in your particular usage circumstance. If you know maybe 75% of the time you'll always needs the Orders of a Customer, than lazy-load is probably not the best bet. It would be better for your CustomerDataMapper to populate that collection at the time you get a Customer entity.
Again, I think NHibernate and EF 4.0 both allow you to change lazy-loading characteristics at runtime, so, as per usual, it makes sense to use an ORM, b/c a lot of functionality is provided for you.
If you don't use Orders that often, then use a lazy-load to populate the Orders collection.
I hope that this is "right", and is a way of accomplishing lazy-load the correct way for Domain Model designs. I'm still a newbie at this stuff...
Mike

Advice on Linq to SQL mapping object design

I hope the title and following text are clear, I'm not very familiar with the correct terms so please correct me if I get anything wrong. I'm using Linq ORM for the first time and am wondering how to address the following.
Say I have two DB tables:
User
----
Id
Name
Phone
-----
Id
UserId
Model
The Linq code generator produces a bunch of entity classes.
I then write my own classes and interfaces which wrap these Linq classes:
class DatabaseUser : IUser
{
public DatabaseUser(User user)
{
_user = user;
}
public Guid Id
{
get { return _user.Id; }
}
... etc
}
so far so good.
Now it's easy enough to find a users phones from Phones.Where(p => p.User = user) but surely comsumers of the API shouldn't need to be writing their own Linq queries to get at data, so I should wrap this query in a function or property somewhere.
So the question is, in this example, would you add a Phones property to IUser or not?
In other words, should my interface specifically be modelling my database objects (in which case Phones doesn't belong in IUser), or are they actually simply providing a set of functions and properties which are conceptually associated with a User (in which case it does)?
There seems drawbacks to both views, but I'm wondering if there is a standard approach to the problem. Or just any general words of wisdom you could share.
My first thought was to use extension methods but in fact that doesn't work in this case.

I've had some awful experiences trying to abstract LINQtoSQL entities behind interfaces. It was a while ago, but from memory the main problem was that it totally breaks associations. For example, if you have a Customer -> Order relationship, you end up exposing it as an ICustomer, with a collection of IOrders, which means that Customer has to do some awkward mapping to cast it's internal collection of Order objects as IOrders.
Then you have to assume that when an IOrder gets passed back in, that we can cast it to an Order. Otherwise LINQtoSQL can't deal with it, but then that defeats the point of having the interface there in the first place.
I would strongly recommend that you don't try and abstract away the entity classes too much, LINQtoSQL doesn't actually put any real magic in them, the DataContext handles their persistence lifecycle, so they remain testable.
The aspects that I would be looking to hide behind an interface would be the interactions with DataContext, for example using Repository-style classes:
public interface IPhoneRepository
{
IEnumerable<Phone> GetPhonesForUser(User user);
}
public class L2SPhoneRepository : IPhoneRepository
{
private readonly MyDataContext context;
public L2SPhoneRepository(MyDataContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public IEnumerable<Phone> GetPhonesForUser(User user)
{
return context.Phones.Where(p => p.User == user);
}
}

Your interface should model how you would like for the objects to be used. Since you are trying to abstract, then the consumer should not have to query the DB. Whether you make it a property, or a separate function call (ie, GetPhones()), is entirely up to you. Since you are completely wrapping things, you'll have to make some choices about how deep/lazily you want to load your objects.

You should add Phones property to IUser and make it nullable, so for a User who don't have Phone, it will be null.
Since you don't want consumers of the API to write queries, than you should implement functions like GetUser().. etc.
Here is a nice list of article abt n-tier application in Asp.net
http://imar.spaanjaars.com/QuickDocId.aspx?quickdoc=416

I tend to consider the Linq2Sql related stuff to be an implementation detail of the data access code and, like the real structure of the database, shouldn't necessarily be exposed to other parts of the system.
If your API is going to be consumed by other people it should be cohesive and easy to use and not cluttered by things the consumer doesn't need to know about. If I'm dealing with users and their phones I don't really want to know about DataContexts or (ugh) DataSets.
Also, by keeping the bulk of your code ignorant of the L2S and database you will have an easier time testing, making schema changes (oh, so now the User table needs to keep a history of every change made) or even changing the ORM completely.