Search Results

Search found 14351 results on 575 pages for 'model driven'.

Page 32/575 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• S#arp Architecture 1.5 released

  - by AlecWhittington

  The past two weeks have been wonderful for me, spending 12 days on Oahu, Hawaii. Then followed up with the S#arp Architecture 1.5 release. It has been a short 4 months since taking over as the project lead and this is my first major milestone. With this release, we advance S# even more forward with the ASP.NET MVC 2 enhancements. What's is S#? Pronounced "Sharp Architecture," this is a solid architectural foundation for rapidly building maintainable web applications leveraging the ASP.NET MVC framework...(read more)

  Read the article

• Where do we put "asking the world" code when we separate computation from side effects?

  - by Alexey

  According to Command-Query Separation principle, as well as Thinking in Data and DDD with Clojure presentations one should separate side effects (modifying the world) from computations and decisions, so that it would be easier to understand and test both parts. This leaves an unanswered question: where relatively to the boundary should we put "asking the world"? On the one hand, requesting data from external systems (like database, extental services' APIs etc) is not referentially transparent and thus should not sit together with pure computational and decision making code. On the other hand, it's problematic, or maybe impossible to tease them apart from computational part and pass it as an argument as because we may not know in advance which data we may need to request.

  Read the article

• Sharp Architecture 1.9.5 Released

  - by AlecWhittington

  The S#arp Architecture team is proud to announce the release of version 1.9.5. This version has had the following changes: Upgraded to MVC 3 RTM Solution upgraded to .NET 4 Implementation of IDependencyResolver provided, but not implemented This marks the last scheduled release of 1.X for S#arp Architecture . The team is working hard to get the 2.0 release out the door and we hope to have a preview of that coming soon. With regards to IDependencyResolver, we have provided an implementation, but have...(read more)

  Read the article

• S#arp Architecture 1.5.2 released

  - by AlecWhittington

  It has been a few weeks since S#arp Architecture 1.5 RTM has been released. While it was a major success a few issues were found that needed to be addressed. These mostly involved the Visual Studio templates. What's new in S#arp Architecture 1.5.2? Merged the SharpArch.* assemblies into a single assembly (SharpArch.dll) Updated both VS 2008 and 2010 templates to reflect the use of the merged assembly Updated SharpArch.build with custom script that allows the merging of the assemblies. Copys new merged...(read more)

  Read the article

• Are CQRS/DDD/Event Sourcing and REST compatible?

  - by Robin Green

  REST seems to promote the idea of a canonical URL for a resource, and PUTing/POSTing back a modified representation of that resource in order to change it. However, with CQRS - Command Query Responsibility Segregation - one can theoretically have a completely different "API" for reading and for writing, which seems to conflict with the REST ideal of one URL for a resource, and no RPC-style "verbs inside the request body". DDD and Event Sourcing sometimes go together with CQRS, which is why I mention them in this question. So, can CQRS be used together with REST? Or is it against the REST way of doing things? What about DDD? And Event Sourcing? Can they be used with REST?

  Read the article

• S#arp Architecture 1.5.1 released

  - by AlecWhittington

  So far we have had some great success with the 1.5 release of S#arp Architecture, but there were a few issues that made it into the release that needed to be corrected. These issues were: Unnecessary assemblies in the root /bin and SolutionItemsContainer folders Nant folder removed from root /bin - this was causing issues with the build scripts that come with the project if the user did not have Nant installed and available via a path variable VS 2010 template - the CrudScaffoldingForEnterpriseApp...(read more)

  Read the article

• Can an aggregate root hold references of members of another aggregate root?

  - by Rushino

  Hello, I know outside aggregates cant change anything inside an aggregate without passing by his root. That said i would like to know if an aggregate root can hold references of members (objects insides) of another aggregate root? (fellowing DDD rules) Example : a Calendar contain a list of phases which contain a list of sequences which contain a list of assignations Calendar is root because phases and sequences and assignations only work in context of a calendar. You also have Students and Groups of student (called groups) It is possible (fellowing DDD rules) to make Groups holding references of assignations or it need to pass by the root for accessing groups from assignations ? Thanks.

  Read the article

• TDD with limited resources

  - by bunglestink

  I work in a large company, but on a just two man team developing desktop LOB applications. I have been researching TDD for quite a while now, and although it is easy to realize its benefits for larger applications, I am having a hard time trying to justify the time to begin using TDD on the scale of our applications. I understand its advantages in automating testing, improving maintainability, etc., but on our scale, writing even basic unit tests for all of our components could easily double development time. Since we are already undermanned with extreme deadlines, I am not sure what direction to take. While other practices such as agile iterative development make perfect since, I am kind of torn over the productivity trade-offs of TDD on a small team. Are the advantages of TDD worth the extra development time on small teams with very tight schedules?

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Ubiquitous Language and Custom types

  - by EdvRusj

  Note that my question is referring to those attributes that even on their own already represent a concept ( ie on their own provide a cohesive meaning ). Thus such attribute needs no additional functional support and as such is self-contained. I'm also well-aware that even with self-contained attributes the custom types may prove beneficial ( for example, they give the ability to add new behavior later, when business requirements change ). Thus, my question focuses only on whether custom types for self-contained attributes really enrich Ubiquitous Language UL a) I've read that in most cases, even simple, self-contained attributes should have custom, more descriptive types rather than basic value types ( double, string ... ), because among other things, descriptive types add to the UL, while the use of basic types instead weakens the language. I understand the importance of UL, but how does having a basic type for a self-contained attribute weaken the language, since with self-contained attributes the name of the attribute already adequately describes the concept and thus contributes to the UL vocabulary? For example, the term person_age already adequately explains the concept of quantifying the number of years a person has: class Person { string person_age; } so what could we possibly gain by also introducing the term ThingAge to the UL: class person { ThingAge person_age; } thanks

  Read the article

• DDD / Layers and legacy systems

  - by CSM

  I have to refactor a complex C# app (many dialogs, mixed logic and so on). There is a part managing the communication with special hardware equipments (sending commands and receive data via asynchronous c# callbacks). The code is "spaghetti" with mixed UI/Logic/Communication/etc and my task is to split the layers in a DDD sense. So, to which layer belongs a callback driver routine? The callbacks are creating "bubbles" in the system, up to the UI layer and because of this I cannot enforce the essential principle that any element of a layer depends only on other elements in the same layer or on elements of the layers "beneath" it. Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• How do I check that my tests were not removed by other developers?

  - by parxier

  I've just came across an interesting collaborative coding issue at work. I've written some unit/functional/integration tests and implemented new functionality into application that's got ~20 developers working on it. All tests passed and I checked in the code. Next day I updated my project and noticed (by chance) that some of my test methods were deleted by other developers (merging problems on their end). New application code was not touched. How can I detect such problem automatically? I mean, I write tests to automatically check that my code still works (or was not deleted), how do I do the same for tests? We're using Java, JUnit, Selenium, SVN and Hudson CI if it matters.

  Read the article

• Applying DDD principles in a RESTish web service

  - by Andy

  I am developing an RESTish web service. I think I got the idea of the difference between aggregation and composition. Aggregation does not enforce lifecycle/scope on the objects it references. Composition does enforce lifecycle/scope on the objects it contain/own. If I delete a composite object then all the objects it contain/own are deleted as well, while the deleting an aggregate root does not delete referenced objects. 1) If it is true that deleting aggregate roots does not necessary delete referenced objects, what sense does it make to not have a repository for the references objects? Or are aggregate roots as a term referring to what is known as composite object? 2) When you create an web service you will have multiple endpoints, in my case I have one entity Book and another named Comment. It does not make sense to leave the comments in my application if the book is deleted. Therefore, book is a composite object. I guess I should not have a repository for comments since that would break the enforcement of lifecycle and rules that the book class may have. However I have URL such as (examples only): GET /books/1/comments POST /books/1/comments Now, if I do not have a repository for comments, does that mean I have to load the book object and then return the referenced comments? Am I allowed to return a list of Comment entities from the BookRepository, does that make sense? The repository for Book may eventually become rather big with all sorts of methods. Am I allowed to write JPQL (JPA queries) that targets comments and not books inside the repository? What about pagination and filtering of comments. When adding a new comment triggered by the POST endpoint, do you need to load the book, add the comment to the book, and then update the whole book object? What I am currently doing is having a own CommentRepository, even though the comments are deleted with the book. I could need some direction on how to do it correct. Since you are exposing not only root objects in RESTish services I wonder how to handle this at the backend. I am using Hibernate and Spring.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >