I am developing an app in ASP.NET C# and came across the following scenario:
I will have to create some maintenance screens for different entities (tables)
Those entities will basically have the same behaviour within the UI: Search, GetById, Save, Create and GetAll
The entities may have different structure i.e. different properties (fields)
As I am talking about 20 plus admin screens, which design pattern I could take advantage of in order to minimize the amount of code I will have to write?
I though of the bridge pattern but I am a little confused on how to implement it ...
A little bit of the technology background I am using:
ASP.NET classic (n-tier)
LINQ to SQL and DAO objects
SQL Server 2005
For a set of admin screens that are just doing CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations and with little in the way of business logic, I'd be quite tempted to more or less eschew design patterns and take a look at asp.net dynamic data. This is especially true if you want to minimise the amount of code you want to write.
This is not a design pattern... but I would strongly suggest using Dynamic Data. Jonathan Carter has some great articles about it: http://lostintangent.com/index.php?s=dynamic+data
If you're really just doing some basic stuff like this: Search, GetById, Save, Create and GetAll, I would recommend you use repositories. If done wrong repositories can get really bad and nasty, but if you're really primarily limited to this set of operations you've basically described a repository with that set of operations.
You'll want to look at ways in which you can extract the extra logic for example of searching so that you're not creating duplicate logic.
Repositories are nice and testable as long as you make sure not to let them get out of control. I give you this warning only because I've seen far too many people create monster classes out of repositories.
The repositories work with your objects. They are basically the intermediary which handles the persistence of your data. This abstraction allows you to hide from the rest of your code how you're persisting your data. In this case the implementations of your repositories will be using LinqToSql as I believe that is what you said you were using.
There are plenty of resources explaining the repository pattern.
What you want is not a design pattern. You are looking for an ORM with scaffolding. I have used and highly recommend SubSonic - http://subsonicproject.com. You can read about its scaffolding features here: http://subsonicproject.com/web-forms-controls/the-scaffold/
Related
I seem to be missing something and extensive use of google didn't help to improve my understanding...
Here is my problem:
I like to create my domain model in a persistence ignorant manner, for example:
I don't want to add virtual if I don't need it otherwise.
I don't like to add a default constructor, because I like my objects to always be fully constructed. Furthermore, the need for a default constructor is problematic in the context of dependency injection.
I don't want to use overly complicated mappings, because my domain model uses interfaces or other constructs not readily supported by the ORM.
One solution to this would be to have separate domain objects and data entities. Retrieval of the constructed domain objects could easily be solved using the repository pattern and building the domain object from the data entity returned by the ORM. Using AutoMapper, this would be trivial and not too much code overhead.
But I have one big problem with this approach: It seems that I can't really support lazy loading without writing code for it myself. Additionally, I would have quite a lot of classes for the same "thing", especially in the extended context of WCF and UI:
Data entity (mapped to the ORM)
Domain model
WCF DTO
View model
So, my question is: What am I missing? How is this problem generally solved?
UPDATE:
The answers so far suggest what I already feared: It looks like I have two options:
Make compromises on the domain model to match the prerequisites of the ORM and thus have a domain model the ORM leaks into
Create a lot of additional code
UPDATE:
In addition to the accepted answer, please see my answer for concrete information on how I solved those problems for me.
I would question that matching the prereqs of an ORM is necessarily "making compromises". However, some of these are fair points from the standpoint of a highly SOLID, loosely-coupled architecture.
An ORM framework exists for one sole reason; to take a domain model implemented by you, and persist it into a similar DB structure, without you having to implement a large number of bug-prone, near-impossible-to-unit-test SQL strings or stored procedures. They also easily implement concepts like lazy-loading; hydrating an object at the last minute before that object is needed, instead of building a large object graph yourself.
If you want stored procs, or have them and need to use them (whether you want to or not), most ORMs are not the right tool for the job. If you have a very complex domain structure such that the ORM cannot map the relationship between a field and its data source, I would seriously question why you are using that domain and that data source. And if you want 100% POCO objects, with no knowledge of the persistence mechanism behind, then you will likely end up doing an end run around most of the power of an ORM, because if the domain doesn't have virtual members or child collections that can be replaced with proxies, then you are forced to eager-load the entire object graph (which may well be impossible if you have a massive interlinked object graph).
While ORMs do require some knowledge in the domain of the persistence mechanism in terms of domain design, an ORM still results in much more SOLID designs, IMO. Without an ORM, these are your options:
Roll your own Repository that contains a method to produce and persist every type of "top-level" object in your domain (a "God Object" anti-pattern)
Create DAOs that each work on a different object type. These types require you to hard-code the get and set between ADO DataReaders and your objects; in the average case a mapping greatly simplifies the process. The DAOs also have to know about each other; to persist an Invoice you need the DAO for the Invoice, which needs a DAO for the InvoiceLine, Customer and GeneralLedger objects as well. And, there must be a common, abstracted transaction control mechanism built into all of this.
Set up an ActiveRecord pattern where objects persist themselves (and put even more knowledge about the persistence mechanism into your domain)
Overall, the second option is the most SOLID, but more often than not it turns into a beast-and-two-thirds to maintain, especially when dealing with a domain containing backreferences and circular references. For instance, for fast retrieval and/or traversal, an InvoiceLineDetail record (perhaps containing shipping notes or tax information) might refer directly to the Invoice as well as the InvoiceLine to which it belongs. That creates a 3-node circular reference that requires either an O(n^2) algorithm to detect that the object has been handled already, or hard-coded logic concerning a "cascade" behavior for the backreference. I've had to implement "graph walkers" before; trust me, you DO NOT WANT to do this if there is ANY other way of doing the job.
So, in conclusion, my opinion is that ORMs are the least of all evils given a sufficiently complex domain. They encapsulate much of what is not SOLID about persistence mechanisms, and reduce knowledge of the domain about its persistence to very high-level implementation details that break down to simple rules ("all domain objects must have all their public members marked virtual").
In short - it is not solved
(here goes additional useless characters to post my awesome answer)
All good points.
I don't have an answer (but the comment got too long when I decided to add something about stored procs) except to say my philosophy seems to be identical to yours and I code or code generate.
Things like partial classes make this a lot easier than it used to be in the early .NET days. But ORMs (as a distinct "thing" as opposed to something that just gets done in getting to and from the database) still require a LOT of compromises and they are, frankly, too leaky of an abstraction for me. And I'm not big on having a lot of dupe classes because my designs tend to have a very long life and change a lot over the years (decades, even).
As far as the database side, stored procs are a necessity in my view. I know that ORMs support them, but the tendency is not to do so by most ORM users and that is a huge negative for me - because they talk about a best practice and then they couple to a table-based design even if it is created from a code-first model. Seems to me they should look at an object datastore if they don't want to use a relational database in a way which utilizes its strengths. I believe in Code AND Database first - i.e. model the database and the object model simultaneously back and forth and then work inwards from both ends. I'm going to lay it out right here:
If you let your developers code ORM against your tables, your app is going to have problems being able to live for years. Tables need to change. More and more people are going to want to knock up against those entities, and now they all are using an ORM generated from tables. And you are going to want to refactor your tables over time. In addition, only stored procedures are going to give you any kind of usable role-based manageability without dealing with every tabl on a per-column GRANT basis - which is super-painful. If you program well in OO, you have to understand the benefits of controlled coupling. That's all stored procedures are - USE THEM so your database has a well-defined interface. Or don't use a relational database if you just want a "dumb" datastore.
Have you looked at the Entity Framework 4.1 Code First? IIRC, the domain objects are pure POCOs.
this what we did on our latest project, and it worked out pretty well
use EF 4.1 with virtual keywords for our business objects and have our own custom implementation of T4 template. Wrapping the ObjectContext behind an interface for repository style dataaccess.
using automapper to convert between Bo To DTO
using autoMapper to convert between ViewModel and DTO.
you would think that viewmodel and Dto and Business objects are same thing, and they might look same, but they have a very clear seperation in terms of concerns.
View Models are more about UI screen, DTO is more about the task you are accomplishing, and Business objects primarily concerned about the domain
There are some comprimises along the way, but if you want EF, then the benfits outweigh things that you give up
Over a year later, I have solved these problems for me now.
Using NHibernate, I am able to map fairly complex Domain Models to reasonable database designs that wouldn't make a DBA cringe.
Sometimes it is needed to create a new implementation of the IUserType interface so that NHibernate can correctly persist a custom type. Thanks to NHibernates extensible nature, that is no big deal.
I found no way to avoid adding virtual to my properties without loosing lazy loading. I still don't particularly like it, especially because of all the warnings from Code Analysis about virtual properties without derived classes overriding them, but out of pragmatism, I can now live with it.
For the default constructor I also found a solution I can live with. I add the constructors I need as public constructors and I add an obsolete protected constructor for NHibernate to use:
[Obsolete("This constructor exists because of NHibernate. Do not use.")]
protected DataExportForeignKey()
{
}
I'm learning to program using C# and ASP.NET with a SQL Server database. I have developed a system to store and view trades taken on a financial market. Basic functionality is:
Add/Update/Delete an Order
Add/Update/Delete a Trade (a trade comprises one or more orders)
View trades
View orders
There are other entities as well, things like Brokers, Accounts, Strategies, etc that support the main Order and Trade entities.
I have designed my program to have a Database utility class called DBUtil which has all the interfaces to the database. For example to add a new trade I would call DBUtil.InsertTrade(<params>), to add an order DBUtil.InsertOrder(<params>), to update a trade, DBUtil.UpdateTrade(<params>), etc. I was wondering if it would be better to create a Trade class, an Order class, a Broker class, etc. Would that improve the elegance, quality and maintainability of the program? It seems like adding a lot more code for no benefit, well, I can't see the benefits right now of taking such an approach.
As far as I can see adding a Trade class would simply create an extra layer of code, because I would have to call DBUtil.InsertTrade() from the Trade class anyway when adding a trade, for example.
Yes it will improve the maintainability of your code because your business objects will be strongly typed. In addition to that you can create a test scenario without having to connect to real database using mockup of your business objects. One of disadvantages is more code have to be written of course but it will benefit you in the future expansion of your application.
Usually if you use Linq2Sql or EF, VS can create these classes for you.
Edit:
See also this question Why do we need a business logic layer?
It really depends on what the application will grow into and who will maintain it.
IF you are happy with it at the minute then why change it.
I would advise you to read up on software development patterns, at the minute it sounds like you are using the Active Record pattern, and that is OK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_record_pattern
What you are thinking of is moving to a Domain Driven Design solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design
Yes Domain object will be usefull for this case.
I am building a c# - linq - sql server winforms/asp.net application, accessing a database. I would like my business logic layer to be easily testable, and that means not littering it with Linq database queries everywhere. What design patterns/ best practices are available for the following use cases
- inserting/updating a new object
- searching for an object
- loading a bunch of related data into a sort of "presentation" object that could be displayed by various views ?
Here is a six part article about Architecting LINQ To SQL Applications
The Repository Pattern is the one I think you're looking for
I recomend to view video lessons http://www.asp.net/mvc/videos#ASP.NET%20MVC%20Storefront%20Starter%20Kit Part 1-3 about services/repositories/filters. It's good solution.
Look into putting your database calls into a set of classes implementing a common interface (Repository pattern is a common way to do this). Then you can mock these objects when running tests. Just make sure the repositories themselves are tested somewhere too :)
We are currently revamping our architecture and design of application. We have just completed design of Data Access Layer which is generic in the sense that it works using XML and reflection to persist data.
Any ways now we are in the phase of designing business layer. We have read some books related to Enterprise Architecture and Design so we have found that there are few patterns that can be applied on business layer. Table Pattern and Domain Model are example of such patterns. Also we have found Domain Driven Design as well.
Earlier we decided to build Entities against table objects. But we found that there is difference in Entities and Value Objects when it comes to DDD. For those of you who have gone through such design. Please guide me related to pattern, practice and sample.
Thank you in advance! Also please feel free to discuss if you didn't get any point of mine.
#Adil, this is not an answer to your original question, but I would advise you to revise your decision to roll your own data access layer. You note that you'd like to go to NHibernate: just do it now.
IMO, writing an ORM is a waste of time unless you have some very specific restrictions. There are a wealth of options out there, with hundreds of hours of effort poured into them already. Leverage it! LINQ2SQL, Entity framework, NHibernate, Subsonic, LLBLGen are all good, and there are more out there.
Note too that if you roll your own you won't get to use the goodness that is LINQ without a lot of effort.
As far as layering goes, try not to go nuts: keep the number of layers in check and concentrate instead on building a worthwhile interface between them to guard against your abstractions leaking.
I've seen a number of very "patterned", beautifully layered projects that in use end up with logic everywhere and persistence abstractions leaked all over the place. Keep it simple!
CSLA.NET works pretty well as a base for the business layer.
#Adil,
I'm not very experient user, anyway, this is the kind of model I'm using (also with NHibernate).
GUI - with all the web forms and so on
BLL - The catalogs that are responsible for creating instances of new objects
DAL - The place where classes responsible for interaction with NHibernate are implemented. The NHibernate mapping files are here.
Model - Class Library that is used by the BLL and DAL for data transfer object between.
Different patterns are used. For example, the BLL and DAL have a Factory class that allow access to an interface. The catalogs are Singleton classes. All of the catalogs are accessible using a master Singleton class representing my business logic top object (for example "Enterprise" => "Enterprise.PeopleCatalog".
Anyway, hope it helped...
#AngryHacker, thanks for the tip, could you give an example of CSLA.NET?
I want to make a perfect custom DAL (data abstraction layer) class to use with all my projects.
I've searched the internet and found some samples for this but I never know which is the best approach.
Is it to make [Attributes]? Or use <Generics> or something else?
So please just give me a head line and I'll go on from there.
Thanks again and forgive my language.
Just make sure you:
Always use stored procedures
Never use stored procedures
Sometimes use stored procedures
Use nHibernate
Use SubSonic
Use Entity Framework
Write your own
Never write you own
Use POCO
Use ActiveRecord
Use IRepository
Always do what Fowler says
Never do what Fowler says
Don't use Linq to SQL, it's dead
Use Linq to SQL, it's no longer dead
Do all that and you will be fine.
Best approach is:
Don't do it yourself unless its for an academic research project or you intend to build a business shipping ORMs.
Try out the dozens of existing ORM solutions first. (Entity framework, subsonic, nhibernate etc etc...). They all have their quirks and limitations mixed in with tons of awesomeness.
ORMs are incredibly hard to get right and a huge undertaking.
Slightly related and on the money: http://wekeroad.com/2009/06/11/youre-not-your-data-access/
I can recommend you to read this article first. And take a look at EnterPrise Library's Data Access Application Block.
If you are a starter I would recommend use of SubSonic (more so if you are on web development).
as also one mentioned, don't try to implement a ORM tool yourself, there are a lot of them freely available. But a DAL isn't a ORM tool, the ORM tool will be used within your DAL. The DAL is just for hiding the data access logic from the rest of your app in order to have a more maintainable solution. In the end you could also have normal SQL statements i. your DAO class. What you should pay attention at when creating your DAL is to decouple it as much as possible from the rest of the app/other layers. This can be achieved by coding against interfaces and by using dependency injection. Spring is a great help here (given you program in Java). Beside that, there is no big magic on building such a layer.
Trying to create the ulimate, best, perfect DAL seems a bit crazy - there are so many different application scenarios with different and competing requirements and needs that I don't believe anyone can come up with THE ONE ultimate DAL.
You need to check out some of the existing ORM tools, get to know one or two of them, know their strengths and possibly drawbacks, and then be able to pick the best one for every given situation. I doubt it'll always be the same.....
SubSonic is great for smaller, nimbler projects - as is Linq-to-SQL, as long as you use SQL Server as your backend. If you need more enterprise power, you should look at NHibernate, ADO.NET Entity Framework, or other bigger, more capable players (which are just too complex and ill suited for a small, simple scenario).
I don't think there's THE perfect way to create a DAL - learn what's available, learn how to choose the one best suited to your current need, and don't reinvent yourself - use what's available out there!
Marc
Please read Data Access Layer Design Considerations
Definitely don't write your own persistence manager. You should use an Object-Relational Mapper (ORM) if you want to start from a class structure and have the ORM generate the SQL table structures for you, or use an SQL Mapper if you want to start from SQL tables and want to have your classes represent table rows.
I've had great experience using the iBatis SQL Mapper, and a lot of people like Hibernate for an ORM (though there's a learning curve).
Martin Fowler describes several good approaches for writing data access layers in Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture (here's a catalog).
For instance, iBatis for .NET uses Fowler's Table Data Gateway pattern. In iBatis you specify Table Data Gateway objects in XML. Each Gateway typically governs access to one SQL table, although you can do multi-table operations too. A Gateway is composed of SQL statements, each wrapped in a bit of XML. Each SELECT returns one or more row objects, which are just sets of attributes plus getter and setter methods (in .NET these are called POCOs or PONOs, Plain Old C# Objects or Plain Old .NET Objects.). Each INSERT or UPDATE takes a POCO as its input. This seemed pretty intuitive, and not too hard to learn.
Linq to SQL is the best solution or you can try da easiest solution http://fluentado.codeplex.com/