Is it considered bad form to give a DTO a reference to the data access layer?
Or should you always pass a DTO between the data access layer and the application layer?
EDIT: For example, imagine the following:
I keep a product types list in my database.
I'd like to render this list in a drop-down box in a partial view.
This partial view is strongly-typed to a DTO.
Question:
Should I retrieve my product types list first, and then pass it to the DTO via its constructor?
Or is it acceptable to pass a repository reference to the DTO, and then expect it to retrieve this list from the data access layer?
A DTO should never have a reference to the data access layer.
Rather a DTo is a simple transfer object that contains only data and is used to pass information between layers.
A DTO is for passing data from the business layer to your presentation layer. This way you can bind the DTO to your combobox.
The DTO should be populated inside the business layer (middle tier), like when calling a service. The service will call the DAL by for example by DAO's.
Related
I'm developing a RESTful webservice with spring-data as its data access layer, backed by JPA/Hibernate.
It is very common to have relationships between domain entities. For example, imagine an entity Product which has a Category entity.
Now, when the client POSTs a Product representation to a JAX-RS method. That method is annotated with #Transactional to wrap every repository operation in a transaction. Of course, the client only sends the id of an already existing Category, not the whole representation, just a reference (the foreign key).
In that method, if I do this:
entity = repository.save(entity);
the variable entity now has a Category with only the id field set. This didn't surprise me. I wasn't expecting a save (SQL insert) to retrieve information on related objects. But I need the whole Product object and related entities to be able to return to the user.
Then I did this:
entity = repository.save(entity);
entity = repository.findOne(entity.getId());
that is, retrieve the object after persisting it, within the same transaction/session.
To my surprise, the variable entity didn't change anything. Actually, the database didn't even get a single select query.
This is related with Hibernate's cache. For some reason, when in the same transaction, a find does not retrieve the whole object graph if that object was previously persisted.
With Hibernate, the solution appears to be to use session.refresh(entity) (see this and this). Makes sense.
But how can I achieve this with spring data?
I would like to avoid to create repetitive custom repositories. I think that this functionality should be a part of spring data itslef (Some people already reported this in spring data's forum: thread1, thread2).
tl;dr
References between entities in the web layer need to be made explicit by using links and should not be hidden behind semi-populated object instances. References in the persistence layer are represented by object references. So there should be a dedicated step transforming one (the link) into the other (the fully populated object reference).
Details
It's an anti-pattern to hand around backend ids as such and assume the marshaling binding doing the right thing. So the clients should rather work with links and hand those to the server to indicate they want to establish a connection between an already existing resource and one about to be created.
So assuming you have the existing Category exposed via /categories/4711, you could post to your server:
POST /products
{ links : [ { rel : "category", href : "/categories/4711" } ],
// further product data
}
The server would the instantiate a new Product instance, populate it with additional data and eventually populate the associations as follows:
Identify properties to be populated by looking up the link relation types (e.g. the category property here.
Extract the backend identifier from the given URI
Use the according repository to lookup the related entity instance
Set it on the root entity
So in your example boiling down to:
Product product = new Product();
// populate primitive properties
product.setCategory(categoryRepository.findOne(4711));
productRepository.save(product);
Simply posting something like this to the server:
POST /products
{ category : {
id : 1, … },
…
}
is suboptimal for a lot of reasons:
You want the persistence provider to implicitly persist a Product instance and at the same time 'recognize' that the Category instance referred to (actually consisting of an id only) is not meant to be persisted but updated with the data of the already existing Category? That's quite a bit of magic I'd argue.
You essentially impose the data structure you use to POST to the server to the persistence layer by expecting it to transparently deal with the way you decided to do POSTs. That's not a responsibility of the persistence layer but the web layer. The whole purpose of a web layer is to mitigate between the characteristics of an HTTP based protocol using representations and links to a backend service.
It`s seems that the best place to implement validation is as close as possible to the database, so when I use entity framework the nearest objects are the entities, in my case the POCO entities.
The reason for that is that if I want to reuse this POCO entities, the validation is implemented in the POCO objects and then there are less posibilities to insert worng data in the database.
this also avoid that someone try to insert incorrect data in the databse creating another application, or because he does not implement the validation. So it is more secure.
One way to do that is using partial classes that extends the POCO entities and that implements the IValidatableObject interface and return a list of validationresult.
But other way is the following. I have a common assembly that has the following:
One interface that declare the methods that need to implement the repositories.
The POCO entities that will be used by the repositories.
One class with utilities, such as copy entities and methods to validate the data of the entities.
Then I can create many repositories that use different versions of EF or another technology and all of them use the common assembly. This repositories implements the validation using the methods in the common library.
In this case I implement the validation only once. The only problem is that the repositories need to call the methods to validate the data.
But there are advantages in this way, from my point of view. For example, I can validate the data of the entities depending on the type of the operation. For example, if I am adding a new record and the primary key as an autonumeric, if the ID is not 0, then I can throw an exception, or if I try to delete a register when the ID is 0, then I don't need to send the command to the database.
So this second solution solves the problem to implement the validation as close as possible to the database, bacause is used in the repository, that is the element that access to the database, but has the problem that if some developer creates a new repository and not use the validation methods, I can have incorrect data in the database.
So my question is if the best option is to use validation with partial classes or to use a common library and the validation is implemented in the repositories, that is really what the users will use.
Thanks.
OK - phew, big question. My opinion is that the APPLICATION DOMAIN of the application is the boss of everything. The database is just an add-on service. So, the application domain should ultimately validate ALL objects that are being SENT somewhere. No need to validate object coming out of the DB because they were validated going in.
As an example, what if you were creating some object that needed to be sent off to a web service and it needed validation. Lets say it was never going near the database or the repositories. Once the DOMAIN business objects have been validated, they can then be sent for persistence or anywhere else.
Another thing to consider is what you mean by validation. Does it mean the datatypes are correct? Does it mean the business object is valid? Does it mean the business object is valid in the given context? It could mean all or only some of these things.
As an example, what if your system allows users to partially update records (common with very long input forms). The business object may only become valid when ALL the required data is captured, but the database allows persistence of "partial" data. In other words, you can save the business object to the database although it is not valid for further processing yet. etc etc....
I am using ZedGraph for charting in my project, and I am using MVC architecture. My controller will get the data I need to plot from the model and will send it to the view to plot. My doubt is, is it correct to send this data from controller to view in a "C# natural type", as data table or array list, and convert it inside the view to PointPairList (zedgraph's type) or the view must not contain this kind of codes inside and the controller must send the data already converted to the plotting type?
Thanks.
This situation is one of the big reasons for choosing an MVVM architecture (assuming you have that luxury). In MVVM, this kind of code would be the responsibility of the View-Model, so the View can be restricted to GUI-only code, while the Model maintains solely data representation.
Could you perhaps elaborate more on how the controller is sending the View the data, because in the MVC pattern, the View generally queries the Model to obtain data.
So using MVC you can place the conversion code in the View without the need for the Controller to be pushing data to the View.
I’m having a philosophical problem with understanding how to use Models on MVC3.
I believe the problem lies from the fact that I come from WebForms :--)
Let's say I have 10 tables on my DB and as expected when I get them into my EF4, I get those Entity classes that represent the tables (and all their FK integer values).
When I want to display data on the View, I cannot display a select * from table because those FK integers means nothing to my users …and also because some data lies on related tables.
So my understanding is that I can create a Stored Proc, create a Complex Type that represent the actual data to display, coming from separate tables via different SQL joins.
QUESTION 1:
On the view, id MVC compliant to use as #model ..that Complex Type?
or shall I always use Models that are created on the Models folder? And if so, does that mean that I have to replicate the Complex Type on a new model inside the Models folder?
Question 2:
Is this the right way …to create specific SP to collect data that will be displayed or ..is it better to use linq and lambda to be applied to the EF4 Types that come from importing the DB into the EMDX designer.
Thoughts ??
FP
The correct way is to always define view models. View models are classes which are specifically tailored to the needs of a given view and would be defined in the MVC application tier. Those classes would contain only the properties that would be needed to be displayed by the view. Then you need to map between your domain models (EF autogenerated classes?) and the view models.
So a controller action would query a repository in order to fetch a domain model, map it to a view model and pass this view model to the view. Top facilitate this mapping you could use AutoMapper. A view shouldn't be tied to a domain model and always work with a view model. This works also the other way around: a controller action receives a view model from the view as action argument, maps it to a domain model and passes this domain model to the repository in order to perform some action with it (CRUD).
So a view model could be a class that is mapped from multiple domain models or multiple view models could be mapped to a single domain model. It all depends on how your domain looks like and how do you want to represent the information to the user.
As far as validation is concerned, I distinguish two types: UI validation and business validation. As an example of UI validation is: a field is required, or a field must be entered in a given format. A business validation is : the username is already taken or insufficient funds to perform wire transfer. UI validation should be done on the view models and business validation on the domain models.
I'm not sure why you need to use a stored proc, LINQ to Entities is able to generate complex types without needing to create stored procs (in most cases). You select subsets of data, just like you would with regular SQL.
As Darin says, the use of a View Model is appropriate for situations where you have a lot of complex data that isn't represented by a single entity. This View Model would contain multiple entities, or even multiple collections of entities. It all depends on how your data needs to be consumed.
Given that I've got any number of controllers, how should they access the data saved in the model?
In a database driven application it's quite easy as all data can be fetched from one single object.
Should there be a namespace / singleton / global object which allows access to the data?
Should the model be passed to all controllers when they are created?
Some of the best practice being pass around is setting up a repository pattern like so within your model to abstract the data model form data mapping. I'd go into more detail but the first link gets you there.