If my domain object should contain string properties in 2 languages, should I create 2 separate properties or create a new type BiLingualString?
For example in plant classification application, the plant domain object can contain Plant.LatName and Plant.EngName.
The number of bi-lingual properties for the whole domain is not big, about 6-8, I need only to support two languages, information should be presented to UI in both languages at the same time. (so this is not locallization). The requirements will not change during development.
It may look like an easy question, but this decision will have impact on validation, persistance, object cloning and many other things.
Negative sides I can think of using new dualString type:
Validation: If i'm going to use DataAnattations, Enterprise Library validation block, Flued validation this will require more work, object graph validation is harder than simple property validation.
Persistance: iether NH or EF will require more work with complex properties.
OOP: more complex object initialization, I will have to initialize this new Type in constructor before I can use it.
Architecture: converting objects for passing them between layers is harder, auto mapping tools will require more hand work.
While reading your question I was thinking about why not localization all the time but when I read information should be presented to UI in both languages at the same time. I think it makes sense to use properties.
In this case I would go for a class with one string for each languages as you have mentioned BiLingualString
public class Names
{
public string EngName {get;set;}
public string LatName {get;set;}
}
Then I would use this class in my main Plant Class like this
public class Plant: Names
{
}
If you 100% sure that it will always be only Latin and English I would just stick with simplest solution - 2 string properties. It also more flexible in UI then having BiLingualString. And you won't have to deal with Complex types when persisting.
To help decide, I suggest considering how consistent this behavior will be at all layers. If you expose these as two separate properties on the business object, I would also expect to see it stored as two separate columns in a database record, for example, rather than two translations for the same property stored in a separate table. It does seem odd to store translations this way, but your justifications sound reasonable, and 6 properties is not un-managable. But be sure that you don't intend to add more languages in the future.
If you expect this system to by somewhat dynamic in that you may need to add another language at some point, it would seem to make more sense to me to implement this differently so that you don't have to alter the schema when a new language needs to be supported.
I guess the thing to balance is this: consider the likelihood of having to adjust the languages or properties to accommodate a new language against the advantage (simplicity) you gain by exposing these directly as separate properties rather than having to load translations as a separate level.
I've got a class called List_Field that, as the name suggests, builds list input fields. These list input fields allow users to select a single item per list.
I want to be able to build list input fields that would allow users to select multiple items per list, so I have the following dilemma:
Should I do that through implementing a multiple_choice_allowed property into the existing List_Field property, or should I implement a Multiple_Choice_List_Field subclass of the List_Field class?
What's the engineering principle that I should follow when confronted with dilemmas like this one?
Take a look at the SOLID principles. They'll help you in your designs. In particular, the single responsibility principle will tell you not to mix the two concerns in one class, and the Liskov substitution principle will tell you not to create subclasses that break the contract of superclasses, like what you're also proposing.
So what would be the solution in your case? You could create an abstract base class that would be agnostic to the type of selection and then create 2 subclasses, one for single selection and another for multiple selection.
Depends on presence/lack of object evolution - if you want special case, sub-classing or injecting (DI) "select" behaviour (strategy) is good.
But if you also want to allow Field_List to change its behaviour dynamically, then property or mutating method is the only way to go.
Example: Sign-up screen with different "plans" - basic, where you can only select one thing and premium, where you can select as much as you want. Change of plan will switch between drop-down and multiple checkboxes, while still having the very same object including its contents.
I would vote for property/mutate method.
Personally I would go for the Multiple_Choice_List_Field way. I don't think there is a strict standard or an engineering principle that would make you to do it one way instead of another.
The more important thing here is to choose one way to do it and follow it whenever you encounter such a dilemma. You should be consistent, but which way you go is your own choice.
I would choose the subclass because this way you won't have to bloat your List_Field class with additional checks and requirements. Of course there are other considerations such as if you need to switch the multiple choice and single choice at runtime it would be better to go for the boolean property (although subclass will work too, but doesn't feel natural to me).
The other thing is for List_Field you might need more than a single property to handle multiple choices, depending on your current implementation. For example a new property to return an array of the selected items.
Just do it the way it's most comfortable for you to build and maintain (and eventually extend).
Should I do that through implementing
a multiple_choice_allowed property
into the existing List_Field property
If you can do that, I think it's the best solution because this way you avoid class proliferation.
If in doing that you are complicating too much your List_Field class, maybe create a derived class can have some benefits regarding the maintainability of your code.
Personally, I would say neither: instead use a constructor that takes multiple_choice_allowed, and then have a property exposing ListFields as a collection (with just one element when only one is allowed, all of them when more than one is allowed). Make it readonly (which means that you should copy it whenever you return the list).
What advice/suggestions/guidance would you provide for designing a class that has upwards of 100 properties?
Background
The class describes an invoice. An invoice can have upwards of 100 attributes describing it, i.e. date, amount, code, etc...
The system we are submitting the invoice to uses each of the 100 attributes and is submitted as a single entity (as opposed to various parts being submitted at different times).
The attributes describing the invoice are required as part of the business process. The business process can not be changed.
Suggestions?
What have others done when faced with designing a class that has 100 attributes? i.e., create the class with each of the 100 properties?
Somehow break it up (if so, how)?
Or is this a fairly normal occurrence in your experience?
EDIT
After reading through some great responses and thinking about this further, I don't think there really is any single answer for this question. However, since we ended up modeling our design along the lines of LBrushkin's Answer I have given him credit. Albeit not the most popular answer, LBrushkin's answer helped push us into defining several interfaces which we aggregate and reuse throughout the application as well as a nudged us into investigating some patterns that may be helpful down the road.
You could try to 'normalize' it like you would a database table. Maybe put all the address related properties in an Address class for example - then have a BillingAddress and MailingAddress property of type Address in your Invoice class. These classes could be reused later on also.
The bad design is obviously in the system you are submitting to - no invoice has 100+ properties that cannot be grouped into a substructure. For example an invoice will have a customer and a customer will have an id and an address. The address in turn will have a street, a postal code, and what else. But all this properties should not belong directly to the invoice - an invoice has no customer id or postal code.
If you have to build an invoice class with all these properties directly attached to the invoice, I suggest to make a clean design with multiple classes for a customer, an address, and all the other required stuff and then just wrap this well designed object graph with a fat invoice class having no storage and logic itself just passing all operations to the object graph behind.
I would imagine that some of these properties are probably related to each other. I would imagine that there are probably groups of properties that define independent facets of an Invoice that make sense as a group.
You may want to consider creating individual interfaces that model the different facets of an invoice. This may help define the methods and properties that operate on these facets in a more coherent, and easy to understand manner.
You can also choose to combine properties that having a particular meaning (addresses, locations, ranges, etc) into objects that you aggregate, rather than as individual properties of a single large class.
Keep in mind, that the abstraction you choose to model a problem and the abstraction you need in order to communicate with some other system (or business process) don't have to be the same. In fact, it's often productive to apply the bridge pattern to allow the separate abstractions to evolve independently.
Hmmm... Are all of those really relevant specifically, and only to the invoice? Typically what I've seen is something like:
class Customer:
.ID
.Name
class Address
.ID
.Street1
.Street2
.City
.State
.Zip
class CustomerAddress
.CustomerID
.AddressID
.AddressDescription ("ship","bill",etc)
class Order
.ID
.CustomerID
.DatePlaced
.DateShipped
.SubTotal
class OrderDetails
.OrderID
.ItemID
.ItemName
.ItemDescription
.Quantity
.UnitPrice
And tying it all together:
class Invoice
.OrderID
.CustomerID
.DateInvoiced
When printing the invoice, join all of these records together.
If you really must have a single class with 100+ properties, it may be better to use a dictionary
Dictionary<string,object> d = new Dictionary<string,object>();
d.Add("CustomerName","Bob");
d.Add("ShipAddress","1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 0, Washington, DC 00001");
d.Add("ShipDate",DateTime.Now);
....
The idea here is to divide your into logical units. In the above example, each class corresponds to a table in a database. You could load each of these into a dedicated class in your data access layer, or select with a join from the tables where they are stored when generating your report (invoice).
Unless your code actually uses many of the attributes at many places, I'd go for a dictionary instead.
Having real properties has its advantages(type-safety, discoverability/intellisense, refactorability) but these don't matter if all the code does is gets these from elsewhere, displays on UI, sends in a web-service, saves to a file etc.
It would be too many columns when your class / table that you store it in starts to violate the rules of normalization.
In my experience, it has been very hard to get that many columns when you are normalizing properly. Apply the rules of normalization to the wide table / class and I think you will end up with fewer columns per entity.
It's considered bad O-O style, but if all you're doing is populating an object with properties to pass them onward for processing, and the processing only reads the properties (presumably to create some other object or database updates), them perhaps a simple POD object is what you need, having all public members, a default constructor, and no other member methods. You can thus treat is as a container of properties instead of a full-blown object.
I used a Dictionary < string,string > for something like this.
it comes with a whole bunch of functions that can process it, it's easy to convert strings to other structures, easy to store, etc.
You should not be motivated purely by aesthetic considerations.
Per your comments, the object is basically a data transfer object consumed by a legacy system that expects the presence of all the fields.
Unless there is real value in composing this object from parts, what precisely is gained by obscuring its function and purpose?
These would be valid reasons:
1 - You are gathering the information for this object from various systems and the parts are relatively independent. It would make sense to compose the final object in that case based on process considerations.
2 - You have other systems that can consume various sub-sets of the fields of this object. Here reuse is the motivating factor.
3 - There is a very real possibility of a next generation invoicing system based on a more rational design. Here extensibility and evolution of the system are the motivating factor.
If none of these considerations are applicable in your case, then what's the point?
It sounds like for the end result you need to produce an invoice object with around 100 properties. Do you have 100 such properties in every case? Maybe you would want a factory, a class that would produce an invoice given a smaller set of parameters. A different factory method could be added for each scenario where the relevant fields of the invoice are relevant.
If what you're trying to create is a table gateway for pre-existing 100-column table to this other service, a list or dictionary might be pretty quick way to get started. However if you're taking input from a large form or UI wizard, you're probably going to have to validate the contents before submission to your remote service.
A simple DTO might look like this:
class Form
{
public $stuff = array();
function add( $key, $value ) {}
}
A table gateway might be more like:
class Form
{
function findBySubmitId( $id ) {} // look up my form
function saveRecord() {} // save it for my session
function toBillingInvoice() {} // export it when done
}
And you could extend that pretty easily depending on if you have variations of the invoice. (Adding a validate() method for each subclass might be appropriate.)
class TPSReport extends Form {
function validate() {}
}
If you want to separate your DTO from the delivery mechanism, because the delivery mechanism is generic to all your invoices, that could be easy. However you might be in a situation where there is business logic around the success or failure of the invoice. And this is where I'm prolly going off into the weeds. But it's where and OO model can be useful...I'll wage a penny that there will be different invoices and different procedures for different invoices, and if invoice submission barfs, you'll need extra routines :-)
class Form {
function submitToBilling() {}
function reportFailedSubmit() {}
function reportSuccessfulSubmit() {}
}
class TPSReport extends Form {
function validate() {}
function reportFailedSubmit() { /* oh this goes to AR */ }
}
Note David Livelys answer: it is a good insight. Often, fields on a form are each their own data structures and have their own validation rules. So you can model composite objects pretty quickly. This would associate each field type with its own validation rules and enforce stricter typing.
If you do have to get further into validation, often business rules are a whole different modelling from the forms or the DTOs that supply them. You could also be faced with logic that is oriented by department and has little to do with the form. Important to keep that out of the validation of the form itself and model submission process(es) separately.
If you are organizing a schema behind these forms, instead of a table with 100 columns, you would probably break down the entries by field identifiers and values, into just a few columns.
table FormSubmissions (
id int
formVer int -- fk of FormVersions
formNum int -- group by form submission
fieldName int -- fk of FormFields
fieldValue text
)
table FormFields (
id int
fieldName char
)
table FormVersions (
id
name
)
select s.* f.fieldName from FormSubmissions s
left join FormFields f on s.fieldName = f.id
where formNum = 12345 ;
I would say this is definitely a case where you're going to want to re-factor your way around until you find something comfortable. Hopefully you have some control over things like schema and your object model. (BTW...is that table known a 'normalized'? I've seen variations on that schema, typically organized by data type...good?)
Do you always need all the properties that are returned? Can you use projection with whatever class is consuming the data and only generate the properties you need at the time.
You could try LINQ, it will auto-gen properties for you. If all the fields are spread across multiple tables and you could build a view and drag the view over to your designer.
Dictionary ? why not, but not necessarily. I see a C# tag, your language has reflection, good for you. I had a few too large classes like this in my Python code, and reflection helps a lot :
for attName in 'attr1', 'attr2', ..... (10 other attributes):
setattr( self, attName, process_attribute( getattr( self, attName ))
When you want to convert 10 string members from some encoding to UNICODE, some other string members shouldn't be touched, you want to apply some numerical processing to other members... convert types... a for loop beats copy-pasting lots of code anytime for cleanliness.
If an entity has a hundred unique attributes than a single class with a hundred properties is the correct thing to do.
It may be possible to split things like addresses into a sub class, but this is because an address is really an entity in itself and easily recognised as such.
A textbook (i.e. oversimplified not usable in the real world) invoice would look like:-
class invoice:
int id;
address shipto_address;
address billing_address;
order_date date;
ship_date date;
.
.
.
line_item invoice_line[999];
class line_item;
int item_no.
int product_id;
amt unit_price;
int qty;
amt item_cost;
.
.
.
So I am surpised you dont have at least an array of line_items in there.
Get used to it! In the business world an entity can easily have hundreds and sometimes thousands of unique attributes.
if all else fails, at least split the class to several partial classes to have better readability. it'll also make it easier for the team to work in parallel on different part of this class.
good luck :)
I've got some entities which have decimal properties on them. These entities' properties are displayed in multiple places throughout my UI.
Currently I'm finding myself doing:
litWeight.Text = person.Weight.ToString("0.00");
all over the place.
Now I know for a fact that in several instances, and am suspicious of many others that the client is likely to want the values to 3d.p. in the future.
Is there some pattern I can employ to handle the formatting of this Weight property (and other properties; not just decimals, perhaps dates etc.) so that I can have this formatting in a single place?
I know could use a formatstring in the webconfig, or write some extension methods in the UI but these don't seem very elegant solutions.
It would be nice to have some formatting objects which are tied to my entities, so its inherently obvious which formatter to use.
Thanks,
Andrew
The simplest solution would be to make a utility class with static methods that appropriately format different types of values and call them. For example:
litWeight.Text = Utility.FormatWeight(person.Weight);
Can you not add a method to the entities for formatting themeslves? Then each object can delegate to a 'strategy' object to do the actual formatting.
A reason for this is both to be able to change the decimal places etc, but also to allow things like internationalisation - decimal formatting is locale-dependent; some countries use decimal commas instead of points, or group digits in sets other than threes etc.
EDIT: The comment was this puts presentation code in the domain layer. True, so apply the standard fix for all design problems; add one more layer of indirection :)
You may not want to have the full MVC, but the concept of View and Model still seem appropriate. Perhaps, for each entity, define a View class, so PersonView which keeps a reference to a Person object and has properties called format_weight etc for each property of Person that is of interest? It should still use a Strategy pattern for the actual formatting.
So your example would be
PersonView pv = new PersonView(person)
litWeight.Text = pv.format_weight();
(please excuse syntactical errors, I don't speak C#)
If you want, you could make PersonView drop in replacement for Person, either by reimplementing the methods/properties and delgating to the referenced Person, or by inheriting from Person when making PersonView?
You could create a very basic user control - deriving from label or similar - that is responsible purely for displaying a weight string so you then have:
weightValue.DisplayValue(person.Weight);
and the setter formats the decimal as required. If this is used whenever you display a weight then you only have to alter the user control to change all displays of weight.
A basic version could be:
public void DisplayValue(decimal weight)
{
this.Text = weight.ToString("0.00");
}
I would like to be able to do somthing like the following:
//non-generic
var MyTable = new Table();
string name = MyTable.Name;
IEnumerable<String> rows = MyTable.Rows;
//generic
var MyTableGeneric = new Table<MyType>();
string name = MyTableGeneric.Name;
IEnumerable<MyType> rows = MyTableGeneric .Rows;
Would something like this be to much:
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/427/diagramcm3.jpg
or would this be better:
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4136/presentation1nh9.jpg
Sorry if this hard to understand what I am trying to get at, basically I have two objects will share comman properties except for there row collections which will be generic. I would like to do this in cleanest way.
Sorry for my crappy diagrams, made in powerpoint :)
I'd say the second design is better. Less items and easier inheritance path.
The first design has unnecessary interfaces, which you don't really need unless you're implementing something else which implements the interface, but doesn't inherit from the base class.
What's the difference betweeen a Table and a Table<string>? In other words, can you not just use Table<string> as your nongeneric form?
If you do go for the second option, I'd suggest renaming one of your Rows properties - you may be able to get away with having two properties of different types through hiding etc, but it's not going to be pleasant.
How much behaviour will your Table type actually have? If it's really just a container, you may not need an interface - but if it's got significant logic behind it, you may want to have an interface so that you can mock out the table when testing a class which uses it.
I would use generics in the rows, without involving string in the base class, and have the non generic inherit the Table class. Consider not using the abstract class.
Table<T> -> Table:Table<string>