Develop Reference

ResponstDTO with complex Property in ServiceStack

Havin a Response with a complex property, i want to to map to my responseDTO properly. For all basic types it works out flawlessly.
The ResponseDTO looks like this:
public class ResponseDto
{
public string Id {
get;
set;
}
public struct Refs
{
public Genre GenreDto {
get;
set;
}
public Location LocationDto {
get;
set;
}
}
public Refs References {
get;
set;
}
}
Genre and Location are both for now simple classes with simple properties (int/string)
public class GenreDto {
public string Id {
get;
set;
}
public string Name {
get;
set;
}
}
Question:
Is there any way, without changing/replacing the generic unserializer ( and more specific example) (in this example JSON ) to map such complex properties?
One specific difference to the GithubResponse example is, that i cant use a dictionry of one type, since i have different types under references. Thats why i use a struct, but this seems not to work. Maybe only IEnumerable are allowed?
Update
There is a way using lamda expressins to parse the json manually github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Text/blob/master/tests/ServiceStack.Text.Tests/UseCases/CentroidTests.cs#L136 but i would really like to avoid this, since the ResponseDTO becomes kinda useless this way - since when writing this kind of manual mapping i would no longer us Automapper to map from ResponseDto to DomainModel - i though like this abstraction and "seperation".
Thanks

I used lambda expressions to solve this issue, a more complex example would be
static public Func<JsonObject,Cart> fromJson = cart => new Cart(new CartDto {
Id = cart.Get<string>("id"),
SelectedDeliveryId = cart.Get<string>("selectedDeliveryId"),
SelectedPaymentId = cart.Get<string>("selectedPaymentId"),
Amount = cart.Get<float>("selectedPaymentId"),
AddressBilling = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("address_billing").FirstOrDefault().ConvertTo(AddressDto.fromJson),
AddressDelivery = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("address_delivery").FirstOrDefault().ConvertTo(AddressDto.fromJson),
AvailableShippingTypes = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("delivery").ConvertAll(ShippingTypeDto.fromJson),
AvailablePaypmentTypes = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("payment").ConvertAll(PaymentOptionDto.fromJson),
Tickets = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("ticket").ConvertAll(TicketDto.fromJson)
});
So this lamda exprpession is used to parse the JsonObject response of the request and map everything inside, even nested ressources. This works out very well and flexible

Some time ago i stumbled upon a similar problem. Actually ServiceStack works well with complex properties. The problem in my scenario was that i was fetching data from a database and was passing the objects returned from the DB provider directly to ServiceStack. The solution was to either create DTOs out of the models returned by the DB provider or invoke .ToList() on those same models.
I'm just sharing some experience with SS but may be you can specify what's not working for you. Is there an exception thrown or something else.

C# Processing same object with different "processors" a flyweight pattern?

I've been doing a lot of research on different design patterns and I'm trying to determine the correct way of doing this.
I have an image uploading MVC app that I'm developing which needs to process the image in several different ways, such as create a thumbnail and save a database record. Would the best way to approach this be via a flyweight pattern? Using this as an example:
var image = new Image();
List<IProcessors> processors = processorFactory.GetProcessors(ImageType.Jpeg);
foreach(IProcessor processor in processors)
{
processor.process(image);
}
I have second part to this question as well. What if the processor has smaller related "sub-processors"? An example that I have in my head would be a book generator.
I have a book generator
that has page generators
that has paragraph generators
that has sentence generators
Would this be a flyweight pattern as well? How would I handle the traversal of that tree?
EDIT
I asked this question below but I wanted to add it here:
All the examples that I've see of the composite pattern seems to relate to handling of values while the flyweight pattern seems to deal with processing (or sharing) of an object's state. Am I just reading into the examples too much? Would combining the patterns be the solution?

I can at least handle the second part of the question. To expand a tree (or a composite), use simple recursion.
void Recursion(TreeItem parent)
{
// First call the same function for all the children.
// This will take us all the way to the bottom of the tree.
// The foreach loop won't execute when we're at the bottom.
foreach (TreeItem child in parent.Children)
{
Recursion(child);
}
// When there are no more children (since we're at the bottom)
// then finally perform the task you want. This will slowly work
// it's way up the entire tree from bottom most items to the top.
Console.WriteLine(parent.Name);
}

What your describing could have some flyweights representing each of those nested classes. But in this case that would be more of an implementation detail. In my experience, flyweights are usually called for at the architectural level or implementation level but rarely as an element of design.
Consider this class -
public interface IMyData {
IdType MyId { get; }
byte[] BlobData { get; }
long SizeOfBlob { get; }
}
public class MyData : IMyData {
public IdType MyId { get; private set; }
public byte[] BlobData { get; set; }
public long SizeOfBlob { get { return BlobData.LongLength; } }
}
}
In your multi-tiered application, this object needs to travel from the source database, to a manager's IPhone for approval based on the blob size, and then to an accounting system for billing. So instead of transporting the whole thing to the IPhone App, you substitute the flyweight:
public class MyDataFlyWeight : IMyData {
public MyDataFlyWeight(IdType myId, long blobSize){
MyId = myId;
BlobSize = blobSize;
}
public IdType MyId { get; set; }
public byte[] MutableBlobData { get {
throw new NotImplmentedException();
}
}
public long BlobSize { get; private set; }
}
}
By having both implement IMyData and by building the system with the interface and not the concrete type (you did this, right?!), then you could use MyDataFlyweight objects from the IPhone App and MyData objects in the rest of the system. All you have to do is properly initialize MyDataFlyweight with the blob size.
The architecture which calls for an IPhone App would dictate that a flyweight is used within the IPhone App.
In addition, consider the newer Lazy<T> class:
public class MyData : IMyData {
public IdType MyId { get; private set; }
private Lazy<byte[]> _blob = new Lazy<byte[]>(() =>
StaticBlobService.GetBlob(MyId));
public byte[] BlobData { get { return _blob.Value; } }
public long SizeOfBlob { get { return BlobData.LongLength; } }
}
}
This is an example of using the flyweight purely as an implementation detail.

Manual Creation of Classes Vs. DBML

I'm currently creating objects for an application of mine when this stuff come to mind. I know that using DBML's over Manual Creation of classes(see class below) can improve the speed of my application development but I'm really confused of what would be the other disadvantages and advantages of using DBML's over Manual Creation of classes like what I'm doing below thanks for all people who would help. :)
[Serializable]
public class Building
{
public Building()
{
LastEditDate = DateTime.Now.Date;
LastEditUser = GlobalData.CurrentUser.FirstName + " " + GlobalData.CurrentUser.LastName;
}
public int BuildingID { get; set; }
public string BuildingName { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public DateTime LastEditDate { get; set; }
public string LastEditUser { get; set; }
public static bool CheckIfBuildingNameExists(string buildingName, int buildingID = 0)
{
return BuildingsDA.CheckIfBuildingNameExists(buildingName, buildingID);
}
public static Building CreateTwin(Building building)
{
return CloningUtility.DeepCloner.CreateDeepClone(building);
}
public static List<Building> GetBuildingList()
{
return BuildingsDA.GetBuildingList();
}
public static List<Building> GetBuildingList(bool flag)
{
return BuildingsDA.GetBuildingList(flag).ToList();
}
public static Building SelectBuildingRecord(int buildingId)
{
return BuildingsDA.SelectBuilding(buildingId);
}
public static void InsertBuildingRecord(Building building)
{
BuildingsDA.InsertBuilding(building);
}
public static void UpdateBuildingRecord(Building building)
{
BuildingsDA.UpdateBuilding(building);
}
public static void DeleteBuildingRecord(int building)
{
BuildingsDA.DeleteBuilding(building);
}
}
and my DAL is like this:
internal static class BuildingsDA
{
internal static Building SelectBuilding(int buildingId)
{
SqlCommand commBuildingSelector = ConnectionManager.MainConnection.CreateCommand();
commBuildingSelector.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
commBuildingSelector.CommandText = "Rooms.asp_RMS_Building_Select";
commBuildingSelector.Parameters.AddWithValue("BuildingID", buildingId);
SqlDataReader dreadBuilding = commBuildingSelector.ExecuteReader();
if (dreadBuilding.HasRows)
{
dreadBuilding.Read();
Building building = new Building();
building.BuildingID = int.Parse(dreadBuilding.GetValue(0).ToString());
building.BuildingName = dreadBuilding.GetValue(1).ToString();
building.IsActive = dreadBuilding.GetValue(2).ToString() == "Active";
building.LastEditDate = dreadBuilding.GetValue(3).ToString() != string.Empty ? DateTime.Parse(dreadBuilding.GetValue(3).ToString()) : DateTime.MinValue;
building.LastEditUser = dreadBuilding.GetValue(4).ToString();
dreadBuilding.Close();
return building;
}
dreadBuilding.Close();
return null;
}
....................
}
I would also want to know if what could be the faster between the two methods of OOP implementation thanks :)

DBML
Pros:
You can get your job done fast!
Cons:
You can't shape your entity the way you want, for example you need 5 columns from the table but it has 10 columns you will get all of them, at least its schema. If you don't care much about data volum
You client side will have dependency with DAL (Data Access Layer), if you change property name, type in DAL you need to change in both BLL (Business Logic Layer) and client (Presentation Layer)
If you manual create class you might take a little bit more time to code but you get more flexible with it. Your client code will not depend on your DAL, any changes on DAL will not cause problems on client code.

Creating your model classes manually you can put additional attributes to properties (it cannot be done with DBML), apply your own data validation (as far as I remember it is possible to be done with DBML using partial methods).
With many tables and assocatiations DBML could become hard to read.
Disadventage of creating model classes manually is that you have to do all DBML stuff (attributes and a lot of code).
If you want to create model classes manually you can take a look at Entity Framework Code First or Fluent NHibernate. Both allows creating model easily.

Constructing an object graph from a flat DTO using visitor pattern

I've written myself a nice simple little domain model, with an object graph that looks like this:
-- Customer
-- Name : Name
-- Account : CustomerAccount
-- HomeAddress : PostalAddress
-- InvoiceAddress : PostalAddress
-- HomePhoneNumber : TelephoneNumber
-- WorkPhoneNumber : TelephoneNumber
-- MobilePhoneNumber : TelephoneNumber
-- EmailAddress : EmailAddress
This structure is completely at odds with the legacy database I'm having to work with, so I've defined a flat DTO which contains the data for each element in the customer graph - I have views and stored procedures in the database which allow me to interact with the data using this flat structure in both directions, this all works fine & dandy :)
Flattening the domain model into a DTO for insert/update is straightfoward, but what I'm having trouble with is taking a DTO and creating the domain model from it... my first thought was to implement a visitor which would visit each element in the customer graph, and inject values from the DTO as necessary, something a bit like this:
class CustomerVisitor
{
public CustomerVisitor(CustomerDTO data) {...}
private CustomerDTO Data;
public void VisitCustomer(Customer customer)
{
customer.SomeValue = this.Data.SomeValue;
}
public void VisitName(Name name)
{
name.Title = this.Data.NameTitle;
name.FirstName = this.Data.NameFirstName;
name.LastName = this.Data.NameLastName;
}
// ... and so on for HomeAddress, EmailAddress etc...
}
That's the theory and it seems like a sound idea when it's laid out simply like that :)
But for this to work the entire object graph would need to be constructed before the visitor erm, visited, otherwise I'd get NRE's left right and centre.
What I want to be able to do is let the visitor assign objects to the graph as it visits each element, with the goal being to utilize the Special Case pattern for objects where data is missing in the DTO, eg.
public void VisitMobilePhoneNumber(out TelephoneNumber mobileNumber)
{
if (this.Data.MobileNumberValue != null)
{
mobileNumber = new TelephoneNumber
{
Value = this.Data.MobileNumberValue,
// ...
};
}
else
{
// Assign the missing number special case...
mobileNumber = SpecialCases.MissingTelephoneNumber.Instance;
}
}
Which I honestly thought would work, but the C# throws me an error on:
myVisitor.VisitHomePhone(out customer.HomePhoneNumber);
Since you can't pass ref/out parameters in this way :(
So I'm left with visiting independent elements and reconstructing the graph when its done:
Customer customer;
TelephoneNumber homePhone;
EmailAddress email;
// ...
myVisitor.VisitCustomer(out customer);
myVisitor.VisitHomePhone(out homePhone);
myVisitor.VisitEmail(out email);
// ...
customer.HomePhoneNumber = homePhone;
customer.EmailAddress = email;
// ...
At this point I'm aware that I'm quite far away from the Visitor Pattern and am much closer to a Factory, and I'm starting to wonder whether I approached this thing wrong from the start..
Has anyone else run into a problem like this? How did you overcome it? Are there any design patterns which are well suited to this scenario?
Sorry for posting such a looong question, and well done for reading this far :)
EDIT In response to the helpful answers from Florian Greinacher and gjvdkamp, I settled on a relatively simple factory implementation that looks like this:
class CustomerFactory
{
private CustomerDTO Data { get; set; }
public CustomerFactory(CustomerDTO data) { ... }
public Customer CreateCustomer()
{
var customer = new Customer();
customer.BeginInit();
customer.SomeFoo = this.Data.SomeFoo;
customer.SomeBar = this.Data.SomeBar
// other properties...
customer.Name = this.CreateName();
customer.Account = this.CreateAccount();
// other components...
customer.EndInit();
return customer;
}
private Name CreateName()
{
var name = new Name();
name.BeginInit();
name.FirstName = this.Data.NameFirstName;
name.LastName = this.Data.NameLastName;
// ...
name.EndInit();
return name;
}
// Methods for all other components...
}
I then wrote a ModelMediator class to handle interaction between the data layer and the domain model...
class ModelMediator
{
public Customer SelectCustomer(Int32 key)
{
// Use a table gateway to get a customer DTO..
// Use the CustomerFactory to construct the domain model...
}
public void SaveCustomer(Customer c)
{
// Use a customer visitor to scan for changes in the domain model...
// Use a table gateway to persist the data...
}
}

I think you are really over-complicating things here. Just use a factory method and let your domain objects clearly state on which other domain objects they depend.
class Customer
{
private readonly Name name;
private readonly PostalAddress homeAddress;
public Customer(Name name, PostalAddress homeAddress, ...)
{
this.name = name;
this.homeAddress = homeAddress;
...
}
}
class CustomerFactory
{
Customer Create(CustomerDTO customerDTO)
{
return new Customer(new Name(...), new PostalAdress(...));
}
}
If you need to take a dependency from Customer to CustomerDTO pass the DTO as additional argument to the constructor, probably wrapped in an additional abstraction.
This way things will keep clean, testable and easy to understand.

I don't think i would go with a visitor. That would be appropriate if you don't know at design time, what operations you need to perform on it later, so you open up the class to allow for others to write visitors that implement that logic. Or there are so many things that you need to do on it that you don't want to clutter your class with this.
What you want to do here is create an instance of a class from a DTO. Since the structure of the class and the DTO are closely linked (you do your mapping in the DB, I assume you handle all mapping issues on that side and have a DTO format that maps directly to the structure of your customer), you know at design time what you need to. There's no need for much flexibility. (You want to be robust though, that the code can handle changes to the DTO, like new fields, without throwing exceptions)
Basically you want to construct a Customer from a snippet of a DTO. What format do you have, just XML or something else?
I think I would just go for a constructor that accepts the DTO and returns a Customer (example for XML:)
class Customer {
public Customer(XmlNode sourceNode) {
// logic goes here
}
}
The Customer class can 'wrap around' an instance of the DTO and 'become one'. This allows you to very naturally project an instance of your DTO into a customer instance:
var c = new Customer(xCustomerNode)
This handles the high level pattern choice. Do you agree so far?
Here's a stab at the specific issue you mention with trying to pass properties 'by ref'.I do see how DRY and KISS can be at odds there, but I would try not to overthink it. A pretty straight forward solution could fix that.
So for the PostalAddress, it would have it's own constructor too, just like the Customer itself:
public PostalAddress(XmlNode sourceNode){
// here it reads the content into a PostalAddress
}
on the customer:
var adr = new PostalAddress(xAddressNode);
The problem I see here is, where do you put the code that figures out if this if the InvoiceAddress or the HomeAddress? This does not belong in the constructor of the PostalAddress, because there could be other uses for the PostalAddress later, you don't want to hardcode it in the PostalAddress class.
So that task should be handled in the Customer class. This is where he usage of the PostalAddress is determined. It needs to be able to tell from the returned Address what type of address it is. I guess the simplest approach would be to just add a property on PostalAddress that tells us:
public class PostalAddress{
public string AdressUsage{get;set;} // this gets set in the constructor
}
and in the DTO just specify it:
<PostalAddress usage="HomeAddress" city="Amsterdam" street="Dam"/>
Then you can look at it in the Customer class and 'stick it' in the right property:
var adr = new PostalAddress(xAddressNode);
switch(adr.AddressUsage){
case "HomeAddress": this.HomeAddress = adr; break;
case "PostalAddress": this.PostalAddress = adr; break;
default: throw new Exception("Unknown address usage");
}
A simple attribute that tells the Customer what type of address it is would be enough I guess.
How does it sound so far? Code below puts it all together.
class Customer {
public Customer(XmlNode sourceNode) {
// loop over attributes to get the simple stuff out
foreach (XmlAttribute att in sourceNode.Attributes) {
// assign simpel stuff
}
// loop over child nodes and extract info
foreach (XmlNode childNode in sourceNode.ChildNodes) {
switch (childNode.Name) {
case "PostalAddress": // here we find an address, so handle that
var adr = new PostalAddress(childNode);
switch (adr.AddressUsage) { // now find out what address we just got and assign appropriately
case "HomeAddress": this.HomeAddress = adr; break;
case "InvoiceAddress": this.InvoiceAddress = adr; break;
default: throw new Exception("Unknown address usage");
}
break;
// other stuff like phone numbers can be handeled the same way
default: break;
}
}
}
PostalAddress HomeAddress { get; private set; }
PostalAddress InvoiceAddress { get; private set; }
Name Name { get; private set; }
}
class PostalAddress {
public PostalAddress(XmlNode sourceNode) {
foreach (XmlAttribute att in sourceNode.Attributes) {
switch (att.Name) {
case "AddressUsage": this.AddressUsage = att.Value; break;
// other properties go here...
}
}
}
public string AddressUsage { get; set; }
}
class Name {
public string First { get; set; }
public string Middle { get; set; }
public string Last { get; set; }
}
and a snippet of XML. You haven't said anything about your DTO format, would work for other formats too.
<Customer>
<PostalAddress addressUsage="HomeAddress" city="Heresville" street="Janestreet" number="5"/>
<PostalAddress addressUsage="InvoiceAddress" city="Theresville" street="Hankstreet" number="10"/>
</Customer>
Regards,
Gert-Jan

For doing conversions between a model class and a DTO, my preference is to do one of four things:
a. use an implicit conversion operator (especially when dealing json-to-dotnet transitions).
public class Car
{
public Color Color {get; set;}
public int NumberOfDoors {get; set;}
}
public class CarJson
{
public string color {get; set;}
public string numberOfDoors { get; set; }
public static implicit operator Car(CarJson json)
{
return new Car
{
Color = (Color) Enum.Parse(typeof(Color), json.color),
NumberOfDoors = Convert.ToInt32(json.numberOfDoors)
};
}
}
and then usage is
Car car = Json.Decode<CarJson>(inputString)
or more simply
var carJson = new CarJson {color = "red", numberOfDoors = "2"};
Car car = carJson;
voila, instant conversion :)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z5z9kes2.aspx
b. Use linq projection to change the shape of the data
IQueryable<Car> cars = CarRepository.GetCars();
cars.Select( car =>
new
{
numberOfDoors = car.NumberOfDoors.ToString(),
color = car.Color.ToString()
} );
c. Use some combination of the two
d. Define an extension method (that could also be used in the linq projection)
public static class ConversionExtensions
{
public static CarJson ToCarJson(this Car car)
{
return new CarJson {...};
}
}
CarRepository.GetCars().Select(car => car.ToCarJson());

You could take the approch I described here: convert a flat database resultset into hierarchical object collection in C#
The idea behind is to read an object, like Customer and put it into a Dictionary. When reading the data for e.g. CustomerAccount, you can now take the Customer from the Dictionary and add the Customer Account to the customer.
You'll have only one iteration over all data to build your object graph.

C#, problem mixing Xml Serialization with Nhibernate

I am working on a program that uses Nhibernate to persist objects, and Xml Serialization to import and export data. I can't use the same properties for collections as, for example, Nhibernate needs them to be Ilists, because it has it's own implementation of that interface, and I can't Serialize interfaces. But as I need both properties to be synchronized, I thought I could use two different properties for the same Field. The properties will be according to what I need for each framework, and they will update the Field accrodingly.
So, I have the following field:
private IList<Modulo> modulos;
And the following properties:
[XmlIgnore]
public virtual IList<Modulo> Modulos
{
get { return modulos; }
set { modulos = value; }
}
[XmlArray]
[XmlArrayItem(typeof(Modulo))]
public virtual ArrayList XmlModulos
{
get
{
if (modulos == null) return new ArrayList();
var aux = new ArrayList();
foreach (Modulo m in modulos)
aux.Add(m);
return aux;
}
set
{
modulos = new List<Modulo>();
foreach (object o in value)
modulos.Add((Modulo)o);
}
}
The first one is working perfectly, being quite standard, but I have some problems with the second one. The get is working great as I am having no problems Serializing objects (meaning it correctly takes the info from the field). But when I need to Deserialize, it is not getting all the info. The debugger says that after the Deserialization, the field is not updated (null) and the Property is empty (Count = 0).
The obvious solution would be using two unrelated properties, one for each framework, and passing the information manually when needed. But the class structure is quite complicated and I think there should be a more simple way to do this.
Any Idea how I can modify my property for it to do what I want? Any help will be appreciated.

The short answer is that you cant.
Typically you would create a DTO ( Data transfer object ) separate from your NHibernate objects. For example:
public class PersonDto
{
[XmlAttribute(AttributeName = "person-id")]
public int Id { get; set; }
[XmlAttribute(AttributeName = "person-name")]
public string Name{ get; set; }
}
On your DTO object you only put the properties that you intend to serialize. You than create a DTO from your domain model when you need to serialize one.
There is a great little library called automapper that makes mapping from your domain objects to your dto's pretty straight forward. See: http://automapper.codeplex.com/
Here is an example of a person class that supports mapping to the above DTO.
public class Person
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
static Person()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<PersonDto, Person>();
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonDto>();
}
public Person(PersonDto dto)
{
Mapper.Map<PersonDto, Person>(dto, this);
}
public PersonDto ToPersonDto()
{
var dto = new PersonDto();
Mapper.Map<Person, PersonDto>(this, dto);
return dto;
}
}