Develop Reference

CQRS with MediatR and re-usability of commands

Does it make sense to create commands that just hold objects? For example:
public class CreateCommand : IRequest
{
SomeDTO SomeDTO { get; set; }
}
public class UpdateCommand : IRequest
{
SomeDTO SomeDTO { get; set; }
}
Or perhaps something like this (deriving):
public class UpdateCommand : SomeDTO, IRequest
{
}
Or commands/requests should be treated as DTOs themselves? I'm confused because I saw many ways of doing things. Also copying all properties to command/request classes doesn't sound like a nice thing to do.
How do you do this in your projects?
Do you map your commands directly to your domain models or you use commands just to pass DTOs?
In case of using MVC framework what should be the input of my controller actions? Should it be a command, or should I create command inside my action implementation and send it? (I guess that will depend on how I model my commands)

Does it make sense to create commands that just hold objects?
No, there is no value added to the extra class: no semantics, no behavior...
Or commands/requests should be treated as DTOs themselves?
Commands (in the CQRS sense of the term) are DTO's by nature. They are dumb data bags that circulate between layers/tiers.
Do you map your commands directly to your domain models
It depends if you favor a task-based UI over a CRUD-based UI. If you do DDD/rich domain model - some would even say basic OO encapsulation - you wouldn't map them. Command names would maybe match entity methods, but their contents are not automatically mapped to domain model fields.
In case of using MVC framework what should be the input of my
controller actions? Should it be a command, or should I create command
inside my action implementation and send it?
I would say both are legit and applicable, except the occasional technical quirk with MVC model binding.

Commands and domain objects, at least in my world, have different design constraints. In particular, commands are part of the API surface - they are part of the contract with other services - and therefore need to have compatible definitions over long periods of time. Domain objects, on the other hand, are local to our current way of doing things - they are part of our organization of data within the black box. So we can change those at any cadence we like.
Commands that cross process boundaries are messages, which is to say byte[]s. That's the bit that needs to be stable, both in form and semantics.
byte[] is domain agnostic, and it's fairly common to pass through several other domain agnostic intermediate stages in "parsing" the message
byte[] -> utf8
utf8 -> DOM
DOM -> Dictionary
...
but we're generally driving toward a domain specific expression of the contract.
See, for instance Mark Seemann
At the boundaries, applications are not object-oriented.
A DTO is a representation of such a piece of data mapped into an object-oriented language.
Having coerced the byte[] into a form that is convenient for querying, then we can start thinking about whether or not we want to use that data to start initializing "objects".
The other question that you may be asking - is there value in a having the message data within a generic metadata "envelope". That kind of pattern occurs all the time - the most familiar example being that an HTTP POST is a bunch of generic headers attached to a message-body.
The data and the metadata are certainly separate concerns; it definitely makes sense to keep them distinct in your solution.
I think compositing the data structures, rather than inheriting them, is going to be the more maintainable option.
public class Envelope<Message> ....
might be a reasonable starting point.

You should treat the command as a "verbal sentence" instructing your domain to do something. For example the "UpdateCommand" instructs your domain to update something. Inside the command you should include the specifics of the command (in your case that dto is fine)...
However be very carefull with those DTO's. You do not want your domain to be dependent on MVC but the other way around. Be sure that the assembly where the dto is living is not of a higher (in the direction of MVC) level than the domain logic.
In your MVC you should have only:
Dependency injection setup
Controllers & Views
Controllers should only contain the code required to transform from the method (http) parameters (witch are unsecure) to the dto required by the domain, and calling the domain.
At least that is the way I'm doing it.

DDD: guidance on updating multiple properties of entities

So, i decided to learn DDD as it seems to solve some architectural problems i have been facing. While there are lots of videos and sample blogs, i have not encountered one that guides me to solve the following scenario:
Suppose i have the entity
public class EventOrganizer : IEntity
{
public Guid Id { get; }
public string Name { get; }
public PhoneNumber PrimaryPhone { get; }
public PhoneNumber AlternatePhone { get; private set; }
public Email Email { get; private set; }
public EventOrganizer(string name, PhoneNumber primaryPhoneNr)
{
#region validations
if (primaryPhoneNr == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(primaryPhoneNr));
//validates minimum length, nullity and special characters
Validator.AsPersonName(name);
#endregion
Id = new Guid();
Name = name;
PrimaryPhone = primaryPhoneNr;
}
}
My problem is: suppose this will be converted and fed to a MVC view and the user wants to update the AlternatePhone, the Email and a lot of other properties that make sense to exist within this entity for the given bounded context (not shown for brevity)
I understand that the correct guidance is to have a method for each operation, but (AND I KNOW ITS KINDA OF ANTI-PATTERN) i cant help but wonder if this wont end up triggering multiple update calls on the database.
How is this handled ? somewhere down the line, will there be something that maps my EventOrganizer to something - say DbEventOrganizer and gathers all changes made to the domain entity and apply those in a single go?

DDD is better suited for task-based UIs. What you describe is very CRUD-oriented. In your case, individual properties are treated as independent data fields where one or many of these can be updated by a single generic business operation (update).
You will have to perform a deeper analysis of your domain than this if you want to be successfull with DDD.
Why would someone update all those fields together? What implicit business operation is the user trying to achieve by doing that? Is there a more concrete business process that is expressed by changing PrimaryPhone, AlternatePhone and Email together?
Perhaps that is changing the ContactInformation of an EventOrganizer? If that's the case then you could model a single ChangeContactInformation operation on EventOrganizer. Your UI would then send a ChangeContactInformation command rather than an update command.
As for the persistence of your aggregate roots (AR), this is usually handled by an ORM like NHibernate if you are using a RDBMS. However, there are other ways to persist your ARs like Event Sourcing, NoSQL DBs and even storing JSON or any other data inter-change formats in a RDBMS.

You question is quite broad!
EventOrganizer itself should not be updating anything. You should keep your update code quite separate from the entity. A different class would take an EventOrganizer object and update the DB. This is called 'persistence ignorance' and makes the code a lot more modular and cohesive.
It would be common to create a View Model - a class whose purpose is to provide the View with the exact data it needs in the exact form it needs. You would need to create the View Model from your EventOrganizer, after which the View can update it - programmatically or with binding. When you're ready to save the changes, you'll need to update your EventOrganizer from the View Model and pass it onto the updater. This seems like a layer you don't need when the project is small and simple, but it is becomes invaluable as the complexity builds.

Relationship between EF-Generated classes and model?

I'm using ASP .NET MVC (C#) and EntityFramework (database first) for a project.
Let's say I'm on a "Movie detail" page which shows the detail of one movie of my database. I can click on each movie and edit each one.
Therefore, I have a Movie class, and a Database.Movie class generated with EF.
My index action looks like :
public ActionResult MovieDetail(int id)
{
Movie movie = Movie.GetInstance(id);
return View("MovieDetail", movie);
}
GetInstance method is supposed to return an instance of Movie class which looks like this for the moment :
public static Movie GetInstance(int dbId)
{
using (var db = new MoviesEntities())
{
Database.Movie dbObject = db.Movies.SingleOrDefault(r => r.Id == dbId);
if (dbObject != null)
{
Movie m = new Movie(dbObject.Id, dbObject.Name, dbObject.Description);
return m;
}
return null;
}
}
It works fine but is this a good way to implement it? Is there an other cleaner way to get my instance of Movie class ?
Thanks

is this a good way to implement it?
That's a very subjective question. It's valid, and there's nothing technically wrong with this implementation. For my small-size home projects, I've used similar things.
But for business applications, it's better to keep your entities unrelated to your MVC application. This means that your data context + EF + generated entities should be kept in a separate project (let's call it the 'Data' project), and the actual data is passed in the form of a DTO.
So if your entity resembles this:
public class Person {
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
You'd expect there to be an equivalent DTO class that is able to pass that data:
public class PersonDTO {
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
This means that your 'Data' project only replies with DTO classes, not entities.
public static MovieDTO GetInstance(int dbId)
{
...
}
It makes the most sense that your DTOs are also in a separate project. The reason for all this abstraction is that when you have to change your datacontext (e.g. the application will start using a different data source), you only need to make sure that the new data project also communicates with the same DTOs. How it works internally, and which entities it uses, is only relevant inside the project. From the outside (e.g. from your MVC application), it doesn't matter how you get the data, only that you pass it in a form that your MVC projects already understand (the DTO classes).
All your MVC controller logic will not have to change, because the DTO objects haven't changed. This could save you hours. If you link the entity to your Controller AND View, you'll have to rewrite both if you suddenly decide to change the entity.
If you're worried about the amount of code you'll have to write for converting entities to DTOs and vice versa, you can look into tools like Automapper.
The main question: Is this needed?
That, again, is a very subjective question. It's relative to the scope of the project, but also the expected lifetime of the application. If it's supposed to be used for a long time, it might be worth it to keep everything interchangeable. If this is a small scale, short lifetime project, the added time to implement this might not be worth it.
I can't give you a definitive answer on this. Evaluate how well you want the application to adapt to changes, but also how likely it is that the applicaiton will change in the future.
Disclaimer: This is how we do it at the company where I work. This is not the only solution to this type of problem, but it's the one I'm familiar with. Personally, I don't like making abstractions unless there's a functional reason for it.

A few things:
The naming you're using is a little awkward and confusing. Generally, you don't ever want to have two classes in your project named the same, even if they're in different namespaces. There's nothing technically wrong with it, but it creates confusion. Which Movie do I need here? And if I'm dealing with a Movie instance, is it Movie or Database.Movie? If you stick to names like Movie and MovieDTO or Movie and MovieViewModel, the class names clearly indicate the purpose (lack of suffix indicates a database-backed entity).
Especially if you're coming from another MVC framework like Rails or Django, ASP.NET's particular flavor of MVC can be a little disorienting. Most other MVC frameworks have a true Model, a single class that functions as the container for all the business logic and also acts as a repository (which could be considered business logic, in a sense). ASP.NET MVC doesn't work that way. Your entities (classes that represent database tables) are and should be dumb. They're just a place for Entity Framework to stuff data it pulls from the database. Your Model (the M in MVC) is really more a combination of your view models and your service/DAL layer. Your Movie class (not to be confused with Database.Movie... see why that naming bit is important) on the other hand is trying to do triple duty, acting as the entity, view model and repository. That's simply too much. Your classes should do one thing and do it well.
Again, if you have a class that's going to act as a service or repository, it should be an actual service or repository, with everything those patterns imply. Even then, you should not instantiate your context in a method. The easiest correct way to handle it is to simply have your context be a class instance variable. Something like:
public class MovieRepository
{
private readonly MovieEntities context;
public MovieRepository()
{
this.context = new MovieEntities();
}
}
Even better, though is to use inversion of control and pass in the context:
public class MovieRepository
{
private readonly MovieEntities context;
public MovieRepository(MovieEntities context)
{
this.context = context;
}
}
Then, you can employ a dependency injection framework, like Ninject or Unity to satisfy the dependency for you (preferably with a request-scoped object) whenever you need an instance of MovieRepository. That's a bit high-level if you're just starting out, though, so it's understandable if you hold off on going the whole mile for now. However, you should still design your classes with this in mind. The point of inversion of control is to abstract dependencies (things like the context for a class that needs to pull entities from the database), so that you can switch out these dependencies if the need should arise (say perhaps if there comes a time when you're going to retrieve the entities from an Web API instead of through Entity Framework, or even if you just decide to switch to a different ORM, such as NHibernate). In your code's current iteration, you would have to touch every method (and make changes to your class in general, violating open-closed).

entity-model never should act as view-model. Offering data to the views is an essential role of the view-model. view-model can easily be recognized because it doesn’t have any other role or responsibility other than holding data and business rules that act solely upon that data. It thus has all the advantages of any other pure model such as unit-testability.
A good explanation of this can be found in Dino Esposito’s The Three Models of ASP.NET MVC Apps.

You can use AutoMapper
What is AutoMapper?
AutoMapper is a simple little library built to solve a deceptively complex problem - getting rid of code that mapped one object to another. This type of code is rather dreary and boring to write, so why not invent a tool to do it for us?
How do I get started?
Check out the getting started guide.
Where can I get it?
First, install NuGet. Then, install AutoMapper from the package manager console:
PM> Install-Package AutoMapper

ASP.NET MVC Design Issues

Whats the difference between Model and ViewModel? I should use both of them or I better skip one of them? who grabs the data from the database?
I wonder whats the best/right way to take my data from the database.
One option is to have a DAL (Data Access Layer) and instantiate it in every controller,
fill with it the viewmodels like:
var viewmodel = Dal.GetArticles();
Another option is to let the model itself grab the information from the Database:
var model = new ArticlesModel();
model.GetArticles();
public void GetArticles()
{
var context = new DbContext();
_articles = context.Articles
}
Another similar option is to have a static DAL so you can access it inside every model,
so each model will have a method to grab the data using the static DAL class (Which contain a DbContext class inside to access the Database)
public void GetArticles()
{
_articles = DAL.GetArticles();
}
So the general question is if the model itself needs to grab the data from the database or the controller itself can have access to the DAL.

While someone is writing a more useful answer, I will quickly address your points.
Model is the data you want to display.
More often than not, you will want to use object relational mapping so most of your business object classes correspond to database tables and you don't have to manually construct queries.
There are plenty of ORM solutions available, including Entity Framework, NHibernate and (now dying) LINQ to SQL.
There is also an awesome micro-ORM called Dapper which you may like if bigger frameworks feel unneccessarily bloated for your solution.
Make sure you learn about the differences between them.
DAL is more idiomatic in .NET than classes that “know” how to load themselves.
(Although in practice your solution will very likely be a mixture of both approaches—the key is, as usual, to keep the balance.)
My advice is to try keeping your models plain old CLR objects as long as your ORM allows it and as long as this doesn't add extra level of complexity to the calling code.
These objects, whenever possible (and sensible—there are exceptions for any rule!), should not be tied to a particular database or ORM implementation.
Migrating your code to another ORM, if needed, will be just a matter of rewriting data access layer.
You should understand, however, that this is not the main reason to separate DAL.
It is highly unlikely you'll want to change an ORM in the middle of the project, unless your initial choice was really unfit for the purpose or you suddenly gained a traction of 100,000 of users and your ORM can't handle it. Optimizing for this in the beginning is downright stupid because it distracts you from creating a great product capable of attracting even a fraction of hits you're optimizing for. (Disclaimer: I've walked this path before.)
Rather, the benefit of DAL is that you database access becomes always explicit and constrained to certain places where you want it to happen. For example, a view that received a model object to display will not be tempted to load something from the database, because in fact it is the job of controller to do so.
It's also generally good to separate things like business logic, presentation logic and database logic. Too often it results in better, less bug-ridden code. Also: you are likely to find it difficult to unit-test any code that relies on objects being loaded from the database. On the other hand, creating a “fake” in-memory data access layer is trivial with LINQ.
Please keep in mind that again, there are exceptions to this rule, like lazy properties generated by many ORMs that will load the associated objects on the go—even if called within a view. So what matters is you should make an informed decision when to allow data access and why. Syntaxic sugar might be useful but if your team has no idea about performance implications of loading 20,000 objects from ORM, it will become a problem.
Before using any ORM, learn how it works under the hood.
Choosing between Active Record-style objects and a DAL is mostly a matter of taste, common idioms in .NET, team habits and the possibility that DAL might eventually have to get replaced.
Finally, ViewModels are a different kind of beast.
Try to think of them like this:
You shouldn't have any logic in views that is more sophisticated than an if-then-else.
However, there often is some sophisticated logic in showing things.
Think pagination, sorting, combining different models in one view, understanding UI state.
These are the kinds of thing a view model could handle.
In simple cases, it just combines several different models into one “view-model”:
class AddOrderViewModel {
// So the user knows what is already ordered
public IEnumerable<Order> PreviousOrders { get; set; }
// Object being added (keeping a reference in case of validation errors)
public Order CurrentOrder { get; set; }
}
Models are just data, controllers combine the data and introduce some logic to describe data to be shown in view models, and views just render view models.
View model also serves as a kind of documentation. They answer two questions:
What data can I use in a view?
What data should I prepare in controller?
Instead of passing objects into ViewData and remembering their names and types, use generic views and put stuff in ViewModel's properties, which are statically typed and available with IntelliSense.
Also, you'll likely find it useful to create ViewModel hierarchies (but don't take it to extremes!). For example, if your site-wide navigation changes from breadcrumbs to something else, it's cool to just replace a property on base view model, a partial view to display it and the logic to construct it in the base controller. Keep it sensible.

A model represents the structure you like your data in and is not concerned about the view which may consume it. A model's intend is purely that of representing the structure.
A model may contain properties irrelevant to the view consuming it.
A view-model is designed with the view in mind. A view-model is intended for a 1-to-1 relationship to a view. A view-model only contains the basic fields and properties the view it is intended for requires.
In general you would have your controller contact a repository (In your example your DAL) obtaining the data and then populating either a model or view-model with the results, sending it down to the view.

Model (Domain Model): is the heart of the application, representing the biggest and most important business asset because it captures all the complex business entities, their relationships and their functionality.
ViewModel: Sitting atop the Model is the ViewModel:The two primary goals of the ViewModel are
1. to make the Model easily consumable by the View and
2. to separate and encapsulate the Model from the View.
Eg.
Model:
public class Product
{
...............
}
public class Category
{
...........
}
ViewModel:
public class ProductViewModel
{
public ProductViewModel(List<Product> products, List<Category> categories)
{
this.Products = products;
this.Categories = categories;
}
public List<Product> Products { get; set; }
public List<Category> Categories { get; set; }
}

Creating a large form with multiple dropdowns and text fields in ASP.NET MVC

In my continuing journey through ASP.NET MVC, I am now at the point where I need to render an edit/create form for an entity.
My entity consists of enums and a few other models, created in a repository via LINQtoSQL.
What I am struggling with right now is finding a decent way to render the edit/create forms which will contain a few dropdown lists and a number of text fields. I realize this may not be the most user-friendly approach, but it is what I am going with right now :).
I have a repository layer and a business layer. The controllers interface with the service layer.
Is it best to simply create a viewmodel like so?
public class EventFormViewModel
{
IEventService _eventService;
public IEvent Event { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<EventCampaign> Campaigns { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Statuses { get; private set; }
// Other tables/dropdowns go here
// Constructor
public EventFormViewModel(IEventService eventService, IEvent ev)
{
_eventService = eventService;
Event = ev;
// Initialize Collections
Campaigns = eventService.getCampaigns().ToSelectList(); //extn method maybe?
Statuses = eventService.getStatus().ToSelectList(); /extn for each table type?
}
So this will give me a new EventFormViewModel which I'll bind to a view. But is this the best way? I'd essentially be pulling all data back from the database for a few different tables and converting them to an IEnumerable. This doesn't seem overly efficient, but I suppose I could cache the contents of the dropdowns.
Also, if all I have is methods that get data for a dropdown, should I just skip the service layer and go right to the repository?
The last part of my question: For the ToSelectList() extension method, would it be possible to write one method for each table and use it generically even if some tables have different columns ("Id" and "Name" versus "Id" and "CampaignName").
Forgive me if this is too general, I'm just trying to avoid going down a dead-end road - or one that will have a lot of potholes.

I wouldn't provide an IEventService for my view model object. I prefer to think of the view model object as a dumb data transfer object. I would let the controller take care of asking the IEventService for the data and passing it on to the view model.
I'd essentially be pulling all data
back from the database for a few
different tables and converting them
to an IEnumerable
I don't see why this would be inefficient? You obviously shouldn't pull all data from the tables. Perform the filtering and joining you need to do in the database as usual. Put the result in the view model.
Also, if all I have is methods that
get data for a dropdown, should I just
skip the service layer and go right to
the repository?
If your application is very simple, then a service layer may be an unneeded layer of abstraction / indirection. But if your application is just a bit complex (from what you've posted above, I would guess that this is the case), consider what you will by taking a shortcut and going straight to a repository and compare this to what you will win in maintainability and testability if you use a service layer.
The worst thing you could do, would be to go through a service layer only when you feel there is a need for it, and go straight to the repository when the service layer will not be providing any extra logic. Whatever you do, be consistent (which almost always means: go through a service layer, even when your application is simple. It won't stay simple).

I would say if you're thinking of "skipping" a layer than you're not really ready to use MVC. The whole point of the layers, even when they're thin, is to facilitate unit testing and try to enforce separation of concerns.
As for generic methods, is there some reason you can just use the OOB objects and then extend them (with extension methods) when they fail to meet your needs?