Search Results

Search found 10378 results on 416 pages for 'feature driven'.

Page 18/416 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • DDD: Service or Repository

    - by tikhop
    I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Architecting multi-model multi-DB ASP.NET MVC solution

    - by A. Murray
    I have an ASP.NET MVC 4 solution that I'm putting together, leveraging IoC and the repository pattern using Entity Framework 5. I have a new requirement to be able to pull data from a second database (from another internal application) which I don't have control over. There is no API available unfortunately for the second application and the general pattern at my place of work is to go direct to the database. I want to maintain a consistent approach to modeling the domain and use entity framework to pull the data out, so thus far I have used Entity Framework's database first approach to generate a domain model and database context over the top of this. However, I've become a little stuck on how to include the second domain model in the application. I have a generic repository which I've now moved out to a common DataAccess project, but short of creating two distinct wrappers for the generic repository (so each can identify with a specific database context), I'm struggling to see how I can elegantly include multiple models?

    Read the article

  • Should a domain expert make class diagrams?

    - by Matthieu
    The domain expert in our team uses UML class diagrams to model the domain model. As a result, the class diagrams are more of technical models rather than domain models (it serves of some sort of technical specifications for developpers because they don't have to do any conception, they just have to implement the model). In the end, the domain expert ends up doing the job of the architect/technical expert right? Is it normal for a domain expert (not a developer or technical profile) to do class diagrams? If not, what kind of modeling should he be using?

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubiquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with mixed languages anyway. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options? UPDATE Today, about year later, having dealt with this issue on a daily basis, I have to say that option 3 has worked out pretty well for me. It wasn't as tedious as I initially feared and translating in real time while talking to the client wasn't a problem either. I also found the following advantages to be true, based on my experience. Translating the UL makes you pay more attention to defining the UL and even the domain itself, especially when you don't know how to translate a term and you have to start looking through dictionaries etc. This has even caused me to reconsider domain modeling decisions a few times. It helps you make your knowledge of the English language more profound. Obviously, your code is much more pleasant to look at instead of being a mind boggling obscenity.

    Read the article

  • Accessing Repositories from Domain

    - by Paul T Davies
    Say we have a task logging system, when a task is logged, the user specifies a category and the task defaults to a status of 'Outstanding'. Assume in this instance that Category and Status have to be implemented as entities. Normally I would do this: Application Layer: public class TaskService { //... public void Add(Guid categoryId, string description) { var category = _categoryRepository.GetById(categoryId); var status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId); var task = Task.Create(category, status, description); _taskRepository.Save(task); } } Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, Status status, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = status, Description = descrtiption }; } } I do it like this because I am consistently told that entities should not access the repositories, but it would make much more sense to me if I did this: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; } } The status repository is dependecy injected anyway, so there is no real dependency, and this feels more to me thike it is the domain that is making thedecision that a task defaults to outstanding. The previous version feels like it is the application layeer making that decision. Any why are repository contracts often in the domain if this should not be a posibility? Here is a more extreme example, here the domain decides urgency: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { var task = new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; if(someCondition) { if(someValue > anotherValue) { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.UrgentId); } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.SemiUrgentId); } } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.NotId); } return task; } } There is no way you would want to pass in all possible versions of Urgency, and no way you would want to calculate this business logic in the application layer, so surely this would be the most appropriate way? So is this a valid reason to access repositories from the domain?

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5 Beta 1 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    Well it is official, I just finished my first release for S#arp Architecture . While this is only a beta release, it does contain some big upgrades and we are hoping to get any bugs handled quickly so that we can get the RTM release completed. This will be a short post, with a more detailed posts coming in the next few days. A big thanks goes out to Billy McCafferty , Michael Aird, Hoang Tang, and everyone else that had a say in this release. Release notes Built on top of ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM release...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Are factors such as Intellisense support and strong typing enough to justify the use of an 'Anaemic Domain Model'?

    - by David Osborne
    It's easy to accept that objects should be used in all layers except a layer nominated as a data layer. However, it's just as easy to end-up with an 'anaemic domain model' that is just an object representation of data with no real functionality ( http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html ). However, using objects in this fashion brings the benefit of factors such as Intellisense support, strong typing, readability, discoverability, etc. Are these factors strong arguments for an otherwise, anaemic domain model?

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with a mixed languages. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options?

    Read the article

  • How to fix “Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly”

    - by ybbest
    I encountered this issue a couple times during my recent project, every time I forgot what actually cause the issue. Therefore, I decide to write a quick blog post to make sure I can identify the issue quickly. Problem: Run unit test using a test runner and received a Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly exception. Analysis: Basically, I have changed some code and start the test runner to run tests. The same dll have already been deployed to GAC. So the test runner actually tries to use the old version of the assembly thus could not load the assembly. Solution: Deploy the current version of dll to the GAC and re-run your test, it works like a charm.

    Read the article

  • Resources for popular domain models

    - by Songo
    I have come across many situations where I had to build a system for a library or a clinic or other popular domains. The thing is a domain model for a library was probably done 1000 times already with different level of details of course. Here is an example. Is there a popular website or community where one can find ready made domain models for popular systems? The whole purpose I'm trying to achieve is to quickly get a grasp of the domain I'm modeling and customize it to my needs. Re-inventing the wheel seems really absurd when the same system might have been modeled properly previously. Note I know Google might sound like the perfect source, but there is a repository out there that people can post there models, so that others can share them.

    Read the article

  • DDD and Value Objects. Are mutable Value Objects a good candidate for Non Aggr. Root Entity?

    - by Tony
    Here is a little problem Have an entity, with a value object. Not a problem. I replace a value object for a new one, then nhibernate inserts the new value and orphan the old one, then deletes it. Ok, that's a problem. Insured is my entity in my domain. He has a collection of Addresses (value objects). One of the addresses is the MailingAddress. When we want to update the mailing address, let's say zipcode was wrong, following Mr. Evans doctrine, we must replace the old object for a new one since it's immutable (a value object right?). But we don't want to delete the row thou, because that address's PK is a FK in a MailingHistory table. So, following Mr. Evans doctrine, we are pretty much screwed here. Unless i make my addressses Entities, so i don't have to "replace" it, and simply update its zipcode member, like the old good days. What would you suggest me in this case? The way i see it, ValueObjects are only useful when you want to encapsulate a group of database table's columns (component in nhibernate). Everything that has a persistence id in the database, is better off to make it an Entity (not necessarily an aggregate root) so you can update its members without recreating the whole object graph, specially if that's a deep-nested object. Do you concur? Is it allowed by Mr. Evans to have a mutable value object? Or is a mutable value object a candidate for an Entity? Thanks

    Read the article

  • ODI 12c - Aggregating Data

    - by David Allan
    This posting will look at the aggregation component that was introduced in ODI 12c. For many ETL tool users this shouldn't be a big surprise, its a little different than ODI 11g but for good reason. You can use this component for composing data with relational like operations such as sum, average and so forth. Also, Oracle SQL supports special functions called Analytic SQL functions, you can use a specially configured aggregation component or the expression component for these now in ODI 12c. In database systems an aggregate transformation is a transformation where the values of multiple rows are grouped together as input on certain criteria to form a single value of more significant meaning - that's exactly the purpose of the aggregate component. In the image below you can see the aggregate component in action within a mapping, for how this and a few other examples are built look at the ODI 12c Aggregation Viewlet here - the viewlet illustrates a simple aggregation being built and then some Oracle analytic SQL such as AVG(EMP.SAL) OVER (PARTITION BY EMP.DEPTNO) built using both the aggregate component and the expression component. In 11g you used to just write the aggregate expression directly on the target, this made life easy for some cases, but it wan't a very obvious gesture plus had other drawbacks with ordering of transformations (agg before join/lookup. after set and so forth) and supporting analytic SQL for example - there are a lot of postings from creative folks working around this in 11g - anything from customizing KMs, to bypassing aggregation analysis in the ODI code generator. The aggregate component has a few interesting aspects. 1. Firstly and foremost it defines the attributes projected from it - ODI automatically will perform the grouping all you do is define the aggregation expressions for those columns aggregated. In 12c you can control this automatic grouping behavior so that you get the code you desire, so you can indicate that an attribute should not be included in the group by, that's what I did in the analytic SQL example using the aggregate component. 2. The component has a few other properties of interest; it has a HAVING clause and a manual group by clause. The HAVING clause includes a predicate used to filter rows resulting from the GROUP BY clause. Because it acts on the results of the GROUP BY clause, aggregation functions can be used in the HAVING clause predicate, in 11g the filter was overloaded and used for both having clause and filter clause, this is no longer the case. If a filter is after an aggregate, it is after the aggregate (not sometimes after, sometimes having).  3. The manual group by clause let's you use special database grouping grammar if you need to. For example Oracle has a wealth of highly specialized grouping capabilities for data warehousing such as the CUBE function. If you want to use specialized functions like that you can manually define the code here. The example below shows the use of a manual group from an example in the Oracle database data warehousing guide where the SUM aggregate function is used along with the CUBE function in the group by clause. The SQL I am trying to generate looks like the following from the data warehousing guide; SELECT channel_desc, calendar_month_desc, countries.country_iso_code,       TO_CHAR(SUM(amount_sold), '9,999,999,999') SALES$ FROM sales, customers, times, channels, countries WHERE sales.time_id=times.time_id AND sales.cust_id=customers.cust_id AND   sales.channel_id= channels.channel_id  AND customers.country_id = countries.country_id  AND channels.channel_desc IN   ('Direct Sales', 'Internet') AND times.calendar_month_desc IN   ('2000-09', '2000-10') AND countries.country_iso_code IN ('GB', 'US') GROUP BY CUBE(channel_desc, calendar_month_desc, countries.country_iso_code); I can capture the source datastores, the filters and joins using ODI's dataset (or as a traditional flow) which enables us to incrementally design the mapping and the aggregate component for the sum and group by as follows; In the above mapping you can see the joins and filters declared in ODI's dataset, allowing you to capture the relationships of the datastores required in an entity-relationship style just like ODI 11g. The mix of ODI's declarative design and the common flow design provides for a familiar design experience. The example below illustrates flow design (basic arbitrary ordering) - a table load where only the employees who have maximum commission are loaded into a target. The maximum commission is retrieved from the bonus datastore and there is a look using employees as the driving table and only those with maximum commission projected. Hopefully this has given you a taster for some of the new capabilities provided by the aggregate component in ODI 12c. In summary, the actions should be much more consistent in behavior and more easily discoverable for users, the use of the components in a flow graph also supports arbitrary designs and the tool (rather than the interface designer) takes care of the realization using ODI's knowledge modules. Interested to know if a deep dive into each component is interesting for folks. Any thoughts? 

    Read the article

  • DDD and filtering

    - by tikhop
    I am developing an app in ddd maner. So I have a complex domain model. Suppose I have a Fare object and Airline. Each Airline should contain several or much more Fares. My UI should represent Model (only small part of complex model) as a list of Airline, when the user select the Airline, I must show the list of Fares. User can filtering the Fares (by travel time, cost, etc.). What is the appropriate place for filtering Fares and Airlines? I am assuming that I should do it in ViewModel. Like: My domain model has wrapped with Service Layer - UI works with ViewModel - ViewModel obtain data from Service Layer filtering it and create DTO objects for UI. Or I'm wrong?

    Read the article

  • Domain Models (PHP)

    - by Calum Bulmer
    I have been programming in PHP for several years and have, in the past, adopted methods of my own to handle data within my applications. I have built my own MVC, in the past, and have a reasonable understanding of OOP within php but I know my implementation needs some serious work. In the past I have used an is-a relationship between a model and a database table. I now know after doing some research that this is not really the best way forward. As far as I understand it I should create models that don't really care about the underlying database (or whatever storage mechanism is to be used) but only care about their actions and their data. From this I have established that I can create models of lets say for example a Person an this person object could have some Children (human children) that are also Person objects held in an array (with addPerson and removePerson methods, accepting a Person object). I could then create a PersonMapper that I could use to get a Person with a specific 'id', or to save a Person. This could then lookup the relationship data in a lookup table and create the associated child objects for the Person that has been requested (if there are any) and likewise save the data in the lookup table on the save command. This is now pushing the limits to my knowledge..... What if I wanted to model a building with different levels and different rooms within those levels? What if I wanted to place some items in those rooms? Would I create a class for building, level, room and item with the following structure. building can have 1 or many level objects held in an array level can have 1 or many room objects held in an array room can have 1 or many item objects held in an array and mappers for each class with higher level mappers using the child mappers to populate the arrays (either on request of the top level object or lazy load on request) This seems to tightly couple the different objects albeit in one direction (ie. a floor does not need to be in a building but a building can have levels) Is this the correct way to go about things? Within the view I am wanting to show a building with an option to select a level and then show the level with an option to select a room etc.. but I may also want to show a tree like structure of items in the building and what level and room they are in. I hope this makes sense. I am just struggling with the concept of nesting objects within each other when the general concept of oop seems to be to separate things. If someone can help it would be really useful. Many thanks

    Read the article

  • When do domain concepts become application constructs?

    - by Noren
    I recently posted a question regarding recovering a DDD architecture that became an anemic domain model into a multitier architecture and this question is a follow-on of sorts. My question is when do domain concepts become application constructs. My application is a local client C# 4/WPF with the following architecture: Presentation Layer Views ViewModels Business Layer ??? Domain Layer Classes that take the POCOs with primitive types and create domain concepts (e.g. image, layer, etc) Sanity checks values (e.g. image width 0) Interfaces for DTOs Interface for a repository that abstracts the filesystem Data Access Layer Classes that parse the proprietary binary files into POCOs with primitive types by explicit knowledge of the file format Implementation of domain DTOs Implementation of domain repository class Local Filesystem Proprietary binary files When does the MyImageType domain class with Int32 width, height, and Int32[] pixels become a System.Windows.Media.ImageDrawing? If I put it in the domain layer, it seems like implemenation details are being leaked (what if I didn't want to use WPF?). If I put it in the presentation layer, it seems like it's doing too much. If I create a business layer, it seems like it would be doing too little since there are few "rules" given the CRUD nature of the application. I think all of my reading has lead to analysis paralysis, so I thought fresh eyes might lend some perspective.

    Read the article

  • Vernon's book Implementing DDD and modeling of underlying concepts

    - by EdvRusj
    Following questions all refer to examples presented in Implementing DDD In article we can see from Figure 6 that both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of Banking Account BA 1. On page 64 author gives an example of a publishing organization, where the life-cycle of a book goes through several stages ( proposing a book, editorial process, translation of the book ... ) and at each of those stages this book has a different definition. Each stage of the book is defined in a different Bounded Context, but do all these different definitions still represent the same underlying concept of a Book, just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA? 2. a) I understand why User shouldn't exist in Collaboration Context ( CC ), but instead should be defined within Identity and Access Context IAC ( page 65 ). But still, do User ( IAC ), Moderator ( CC ), Author ( CC ),Owner ( CC ) and Participant ( CC ) all represent different aspects of the same underlying concept? b) If yes, then this means that CC contains several model elements ( Moderator, Author, Owner and Participant ), each representing different aspect of the same underlying concept ( just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA ). But isn't this considered a duplication of concepts ( Evan's book, page 339 ), since several model elements in CC represent the same underlying concept? c) If Moderator, Author ... don't represent the same underlying concept, then what underlying concept does each represent? 3. In an e-commerce system, the term Customer has multiple meanings ( page 49 ): When user is browsing the Catalog, Customer has different meaning than when user is placing an Order. But do these two different definitions of a Customer represent the same underlying concept, just like both BankingAccount and PayeeAccount represent the same underlying concept of a BA? thanks

    Read the article

  • Processing component pools problem - Entity Subsystem

    - by mani3xis
    Architecture description I'm creating (designing) an entity system and I ran into many problems. I'm trying to keep it Data-Oriented and efficient as much as possible. My components are POD structures (array of bytes to be precise) allocated in homogeneous pools. Each pool has a ComponentDescriptor - it just contains component name, field types and field names. Entity is just a pointer to array of components (where address acts like an entity ID). EntityPrototype contains entity name and array of component names. Finally Subsystem (System or Processor) which works on component pools. Actual problem The problem is that some components dependents on others (Model, Sprite, PhysicalBody, Animation depends on Transform component) which makes a lot of problems when it comes to processing them. For example, lets define some entities using [S]prite, [P]hysicalBody and [H]ealth: Tank: Transform, Sprite, PhysicalBody BgTree: Transform, Sprite House: Transform, Sprite, Health and create 4 Tanks, 5 BgTrees and 2 Houses and my pools will look like: TTTTTTTTTTT // Transform pool SSSSSSSSSSS // Sprite pool PPPP // PhysicalBody pool HH // Health component There is no way to process them using indices. I spend 3 days working on it and I still don't have any ideas. In previous designs TransformComponent was bound to the entity - but it wasn't a good idea. Can you give me some advices how to process them? Or maybe I should change the overall design? Maybe I should create pools of entites (pools of component pools) - but I guess it will be a nightmare for CPU caches. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Gauging Maturity of your BPM Strategy - part 1 / 2

    - by Sanjeev Sharma
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} In this post I will discuss the essence of maturity assessment and the business imperative for doing the same in the context of BPM. Social psychology purports that an individual progresses from being a beginner to an expert in a given activity or task along four stages of self-awareness: Unconscious Incompetence where the individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit and may even deny the usefulness of the skill. Conscious Incompetence where the individual recognizes the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. Conscious Competence where the individual understands or knows how to do something but demonstrating the skill requires explicit concentration. Unconscious Competence where the individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and serves as a basis of developing other complementary skills. We can extend the above thinking to an organization as a whole by measuring an organization’s level of competence in a specific area or capability, as an aggregate of the competence levels of individuals it is comprised of. After all organizations too like individuals, evolve through experience, develop “memory” and capabilities that are shaped through a constant cycle of learning, un-learning and re-learning. Hence the key to organizational success lies in developing these capabilities to enable execution of its strategy in-line with the external environment i.e. demand, competition, economy etc. However developing a capability merits establishing a base line in order to Assess the magnitude of improvement from past investments Identify gaps and short-comings Prioritize future investments in the right areas A maturity assessment is essentially an organizational self-awareness check that is aimed at depicting the “as-is” snapshot of an existing capability in-order to guide future investments to develop that capability in-line with business goals. This effectively is the essence of a maturity Organizational capabilities stem through its architecture, routines, culture and intellectual resources that are implicitly and explicitly embedded in its business processes. Given that business processes underpin realization of organizational capabilities, is what has prompted business transformation and process management efforts. Thus, the BPM capability of an organization needs to be measured on an on-going basis to ensure delivery of its planned benefits. In my next post I will describe Oracle’s BPM Maturity assessment methodology.

    Read the article

  • Explicitly pass context object versus injecting with IoC

    - by SonOfPirate
    I have a layered service application where the service layer delegates operations into the domain layer for execution. Many of these operations need to know the context under which they are operation. (The context included the identity of the current user, culture information, etc. received from the caller.) For example, I have an API method that returns a list of announcements. The list is based on the current user's role and each announcement is localized to their culture. The API is a thin-facade that delegates to an Application Service in my domain layer. The Application Service method obviously needs to know the context of the current request/operation as another call to the same API from another user should result in a different list. Within this method, we also have logging that uses some of the context information so we a clear understanding of the context when the operation was performed (this is especially useful if something goes wrong.) While this is a contrived example, in the real world, my Application Services will coordinate operations with many collaborative components, any number of them also needing the context information. My choice is to pass the context to the Application Service which would then pass it with any calls to collaborators or have the IoC container satisfy the dependency the Application Service and any collaborators have on the context. I am wondering if it is considered good/bad, best practices/code smell, etc. if I pass the context object as a parameter to the domain methods or if injecting the context via an IoC container is preferred. (EDIT: I should mention that the context object is instantiated per-request.)

    Read the article

  • From a DDD perspective is a report generating service a domain service or an infrastructure service?

    - by Songo
    Let assume we have the following service whose responsibility is to generate Excel reports: class ExcelReportService{ public String generateReport(String fileFormatFilePath, ResultSet data){ ReportFormat reportFormat = new ReportFormat(fileFormatFilePath); ExcelDataFormatterService excelDataFormatterService = new ExcelDataFormatterService(); FormattedData formattedData = excelDataFormatterService.format(data); ExcelFileService excelFileService = new ExcelFileService(); String reportPath= excelFileService.generateReport(reportFormat,formattedData); return reportPath; } } This is pseudo code for the service I want to design where: fileFormatFilePath: path to a configuration file where I'll keep the format of my excel file (headers, column widths, number of columns,..etc) data: the actual records returned from the database. This data can't be used directly coz I might need to make further calculations to the data before inserting them to the excel file. ReportFormat: Value object to hold the report format, has methods like getHeaders(), getColumnWidth(),...etc. ExcelDataFormatterService: a service to hold any logic that need to be applied to the data returned from the database before inserting it to the file. FormattedData: Value object the represents the formatted data to be inserted. ExcelFileService: a wrapper top the 3rd party library that generates the excel file. Now how do you determine whether a service is an infrastructure or domain service? I have the following 3 services here: ExcelReportService, ExcelDataFormatterService and ExcelFileService?

    Read the article

  • How would you TDD the functionality of getting the corresponding process of a running windows service?

    - by Matt Spinelli
    Purpose Over the last year or more I've been learning unit testing via books I've read recently like The Art of Unit Testing, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, and others. I've also been using unit tests, mocking frameworks, and the like, periodically at work and definitely see the value. However, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around TDD (as opposed to TAD) when the situation calls for code that is gong to mostly use external API calls. Problem to solve Get the process associated with a windows service using the service name. example: Function GetProcess(ByVal serviceName As String) As Process Rules Show each major iteration in production & test code using TDD No need to see any other code or configuration that is required to get things to run. Just curious about the interfaces, concrete classes, and test methods. C# or VB.NET Must use the .Net framework regarding services/processes (i.e. System.Diagnostics.Process) Test Frameworks: Nunit or MSTest Isolation Frameworks: Moq, Rhino Mock, or Microsoft Moles Must write true unit tests (no integration tests) Additional notes As far as I can tell there are two approaches design wise. Use an Inversion of Control approach along with using the Adapter and/or Facade patterns to wrap the underlying .net framework objects dealing with processes and services. Keep the .net framework code in the class containing the Get Process method and use code detouring (interception) via Microsoft Moles to isolate the hard dependencies from the method under test.

    Read the article

  • How to test the tests?

    - by Ryszard Szopa
    We test our code to make it more correct (actually, less likely to be incorrect). However, the tests are also code -- they can also contain errors. And if your tests are buggy, they hardly make your code better. I can think of three possible types of errors in tests: Logical errors, when the programmer misunderstood the task at hand, and the tests do what he thought they should do, which is wrong; Errors in the underlying testing framework (eg. a leaky mocking abstraction); Bugs in the tests: the test is doing slightly different than what the programmer thinks it is. Type (1) errors seem to be impossible to prevent (unless the programmer just... gets smarter). However, (2) and (3) may be tractable. How do you deal with these types of errors? Do you have any special strategies to avoid them? For example, do you write some special "empty" tests, that only check the test author's presuppositions? Also, how do you approach debugging a broken test case?

    Read the article

  • What should a domain object's validation cover?

    - by MarcoR88
    I'm trying to figure out how to do validation of domain objects that need external resources, such as data mappers/dao Firstly here's my code class User { const INVALID_ID = 1; const INVALID_NAME = 2; const INVALID_EMAIL = 4; int getID(); void setID(Int i); string getName(); void setName(String s); string getEmail(); void setEmail(String s); int getErrorsForInsert(); // returns a bitmask for INVALID_* constants int getErrorsForUpdate(); } My worries are about the uniqueness of the email, checking it would require the storage layer. Reading others' code seems that two solutions are equally accepted: both perform the unique validation in data mapper but some set an error state to the DO user.addError(User.INVALID_EMAIL) while others prefer to throw a totally different type of exception that covers only persistence, like: UserStorageException { const INVALID_EMAIL = 1; const INVALID_CITY = 2; } What are the pros and cons of these solutions?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >