Onion Architecture - Repository Vs Service?
Asked Answered
P

7

37

I am learning the well-known Onion Architecture from Jeffrey Palermo. Not specific to this pattern, but I cannot see clearly the separation between repositories and domain services. I (mis)understand that repository concerns data access and service are more about business layer (reference one or more repositories).

In many examples, a repository seems to have some kind of business logic behind like GetAllProductsByCategoryId or GetAllXXXBySomeCriteriaYYY.

For lists, it seems that service is just a wrapper on repository without any logic. For hierarchies (parent/children/children), it is almost the same problem : is it the role of repository to load the complete hierarchy ?

Provost answered 7/9, 2012 at 11:21 Comment(0)
R
41

The repository is not a gateway to access Database. It is an abstraction that allow you to store and load domain objects from some form of persistence store. (Database, Cache or even plain Collection). It take or return the domain objects instead of its internal field, hence it is an object oriented interface.

It is not recommended to add some methods like GetAllProductsByCategoryId or GetProductByName to the repository, because you will add more and more methods the repository as your use case/ object field count increase. Instead it is better to have a query method on the repository which takes a Specification. You can pass different implementations of the Specification to retrieve the products.

Overall, the goal of repository pattern is to create a storage abstraction that does not require changes when the use cases changes. This article talks about the Repository pattern in domain modelling in great detail. You may be interested.

For the second question: If I see a ProductRepository in the code, I'd expect that it returns me a list of Product. I also expect that each of the Product instance is complete. For example, if Product has a reference to ProductDetail object, I'd expect that Product.getDetail() returns me a ProductDetail instance rather than null. Maybe the implementation of the repository load ProductDetail together with Product, maybe the getDetail() method invoke ProductDetailRepository on the fly. I don't really care as a user of the repository. It is also possible that the Product only returns a ProductDetail id when I call getDetail(). It is perfect fine from the repository's contract point of view. However it complicates my client code and forces me to call ProductDetailRepository myself.

By the way, I've seen many service classes that solely wrap the repository classes in my past. I think it is an anti-pattern. It is better to have the callers of the services to use the repositories directly.

Rubio answered 7/9, 2012 at 23:33 Comment(4)
you said It is not recommended to add some methods like GetAllProductsByCategoryId or GetProductByName. If it is not recommended to write these methods in repository then what is the best place? Is it service layer?Bushy
The use of predefined methods like GetProductByCategoryId vs the use of a specification query on the Repository is debatable. Some say that using a specification obscures the contract and adds complexity. With methods, you simply look at the repository and you know what use cases are supported. You have more control over what the clients are allowed or not to do. With a specification, you open yourself to use cases that might not be required, or desirable. As soon as you give clients a possible query, you can never take it back, and must always make sure your Repositories support it.Gris
+ 1 to nwang0. Any custom business logic should go into your business layer. Ideally the whole data access layer can be auto generated (using something like sswdataonion.com). You would also create all your repositories as partial classes, so that most of it is auto-generated and any custom logic can be added.Golfer
@Rubio << Instead it is better to have a query method on the repository which takes a Specification. You can pass different implementations of the Specification to retrieve the products. >> You mean something like a Predicate in the form of a lambda expression?Shanahan
O
17

Repository pattern mediates between the domain and data mapping layers using a collection-like interface for accessing domain objects.

So, repositories is to provide interface for CRUD operation on domain entities. Remember that Repositories deals with whole Aggregate.

Aggregates are groups of things that belong together. An Aggregate Root is the thing that holds them all together.

Example Order and OrderLines:

OrderLines have no reason to exist without their parent Order, nor can they belong to any other Order. In this case, Order and OrderLines would probably be an Aggregate, and the Order would be the Aggregate Root

Business logic should be in Domain Entities, not in Repository layer , application logic should be in service layer like your mention, services in here play a role as coordinator between repositoies.

Odonto answered 7/9, 2012 at 12:59 Comment(1)
Hi @Coung Le, I am also learning Onion Architecture and I am also confused about where to implement methods like GetProductsByCategoryId. At the moment, I am implementing these type of methods in Service Layer which is being injected inside controllers using Ninject as suggested by nwang. Please tell me am I on right track?Bushy
K
7

While I'm still struggling with this, I want to post as an answer but also I accept (and want) feedback about this.

In the example GetProductsByCategory(int id)

First, let's think from the initial need. We hit a controller, probably the CategoryController so you have something like:

public CategoryController(ICategoryService service) {
    // here we inject our service and keep a private variable.
}

public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
    CategoryViewModel model = something.GetCategoryViewModel(id); 
    return View()
} 

so far, so good. We need to declare 'something' that creates the view model. Let's simplify and say:

public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
    var dependencies = service.GetDependenciesForCategory(id);
    CategoryViewModel model = new CategoryViewModel(dependencies); 
    return View()
} 

ok, what are dependencies ? We maybe need the category tree, the products, the page, how many total products, etc.

so if we implemented this in a repository way, this could look like more or less like this :

public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
    var products = repository.GetCategoryProducts(id);
    var category = repository.GetCategory(id); // full details of the category
    var childs = repository.GetCategoriesSummary(category.childs);
    CategoryViewModel model = new CategoryViewModel(products, category, childs); // awouch! 
    return View()
} 

instead, back to services :

public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
    var category = service.GetCategory(id);
    if (category == null) return NotFound(); //
    var model = new CategoryViewModel(category);
    return View(model);
}

much better, but what is exactly inside service.GetCategory(id) ?

public CategoryService(ICategoryRespository categoryRepository, IProductRepository productRepository) {
    // same dependency injection here

    public Category GetCategory(int id) {
        var category = categoryRepository.Get(id);
        var childs = categoryRepository.Get(category.childs) // int[] of ids
        var products = productRepository.GetByCategory(id) // this doesn't look that good...
        return category;
    }

}

Let's try another approach, the unit of work, I will use Entity framework as the UoW and Repositories, so no need to create those.

public CategoryService(DbContext db) {
    // same dependency injection here

    public Category GetCategory(int id) {
        var category = db.Category.Include(c=> c.Childs).Include(c=> c.Products).Find(id);
        return category;
    }
}

So here we are using the 'query' syntax instead of the method syntax, but instead of implementing our own complex, we can use our ORM. Also, we have access to ALL repositories, so we can still do our Unit of work inside our service.

Now we need to select which data we want, I probably don't want all the fields of my entities.

The best place I can see this is happening is actually on the ViewModel, each ViewModel may need to map it's own data, so let's change the implementation of the service again.

public CategoryService(DbContext db) {
    // same dependency injection here

    public Category GetCategory(int id) {
        var category = db.Category.Find(id);
        return category;
    }
}

so where are all the products and inner categories?

let's take a look at the ViewModel, remember this will ONLY map data to values, if you are doing something else here, you are probably giving too much responsibility to your ViewModel.

public CategoryViewModel(Category category) {
    Name = category.Name;
    Id = category.Id;
    Products = category.Products.Select(p=> new CategoryProductViewModel(p));
    Childs = category.Childs.Select(c => c.Name); // only childs names.
}

you can imagine the CategoryProductViewModel by yourself right now.

BUT (why is there always a but??)

We are doing 3 db hits, and we are fetching all the category fields because of the Find. Also Lazy Loading must be enable. Not a real solution isn't it ?

To improve this, we can change find with where... but this will delegate the Single or Find to the ViewModel, also it will return an IQueryable<Category>, where we know it should be exactly one.

Remember I said "I'm still struggling?" this is mostly why. To fix this, we should return the exact needed data from the service (also know as the ..... you know it .... yes! the ViewModel).

so let's back to our controller :

public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
    var model = service.GetProductCategoryViewModel(id);
    if (category == null) return NotFound(); //
    return View(model);
}

inside the GetProductCategoryViewModel method, we can call private methods that return the different pieces and assemble them as the ViewModel.

this is bad, now my services know about viewmodels... let's fix that.

We create an interface, this interface is the actual contract of what this method will return.

ICategoryWithProductsAndChildsIds // quite verbose, i know.

nice, now we only need to declare our ViewModel as

public class CategoryViewModel : ICategoryWithProductsAndChildsIds 

and implement it the way we want.

The interface looks like it has too many things, of course it can be splitted with ICategoryBasic, IProducts, IChilds, or whatever you may want to name those.

So when we implement another viewModel, we can choose to do only IProducts. We can have our services having methods (private or not) to retrieve those contracts, and glue the pieces in the service layer. (Easy to say than done)

When I get into a fully working code, I might create a blog post or a github repo, but for now, I don't have it yet, so this is all for now.

Kelly answered 4/4, 2015 at 21:11 Comment(0)
G
6

I believe the Repository should be only for CRUD operations.

public interface IRepository<T>
{
    Add(T)
    Remove(T)
    Get(id)
    ...
}

So IRepository would have: Add, Remove, Update, Get, GetAll and possibly a version of each of those that takes a list, i.e, AddMany, RemoveMany, etc.

For performing search retrieval operations you should have a second interface such as an IFinder. You can either go with a specification, so IFinder could have a Find(criteria) method that takes criterias. Or you can go with things like IPersonFinder which would define custom functions such as: a FindPersonByName, FindPersonByAge etc.

public interface IMyObjectFinder
{
    FindByName(name)
    FindByEmail(email)
    FindAllSmallerThen(amount)
    FindAllThatArePartOf(group)
    ...
}

The alternative would be:

public interface IFinder<T>
{
    Find(criterias)
}

This second approach is more complex. You need to define a strategy for the criterias. Are you going to use a query language of some sort, or a more simple key-value association, etc. The full power of the interface is also harder to understand from simply looking at it. It's also easier to leak implementations with this method, because the criterias could be based around a particular type of persistence system, like if you take a SQL query as criteria for example. On the other hand, it might prevent you from having to continuously come back to the IFinder because you've hit a special use case that requires a more specific query. I say it might, because your criteria strategy will not necessarily cover 100% of the querying use cases you might need.

You could also decide to mix both together, and have an IFinder defining a Find method, and IMyObjectFinders that implement IFinder, but also add custom methods such as FindByName.

The service acts as a supervisor. Say you need to retrieve an item but must also process the item before it is returned to the client, and that processing might require information found in other items. So the service would retrieve all appropriate items using the Repositories and the Finders, it would then send the item to be processed to objects that encapsulates the necessary processing logic, and finally it would return the item requested by the client. Sometime, no processing and no extra retrievals will be required, in such cases, you don't need to have a service. You can have clients directly call into the Repositories and the Finders. This is one difference with the Onion and a Layered architecture, in the Onion, everything that is more outside can access everything more inside, not only the layer before it.

It would be the role of the repository to load the full hierarchy of what is needed to properly construct the item that it returns. So if your repository returns an item that has a List of another type of item, it should already resolve that. Personally though, I like to design my objects so that they don't contain references to other items, because it makes the repository more complex. I prefer to have my objects keep the Id of other items, so that if the client really needs that other item, he can query it again with the proper Repository given the Id. This flattens out all items returned by the Repositories, yet still let's you create hierarchies if you need to.

You could, if you really felt the need to, add a restraining mechanism to your Repository, so that you can specify exactly which field of the item you need. Say you have a Person, and only care for his name, you could do Get(id, name) and the Repository would not bother with getting every field of the Person, only it's name field. Doing this though, adds considerable complexity to the repository. And doing this with hierarchical objects is even more complex, especially if you want to restrict fields inside fields of fields. So I don't really recommend it. The only good reason for this, to me, would be cases where performance is critical, and nothing else can be done to improve the performance.

Gris answered 17/2, 2014 at 20:15 Comment(2)
Does the Finder hit the data store directly or does it use the repository to fetch all data and then filter?Apple
@Apple Either are valid, but hitting the data store directly will in general give you much better performance. For simplicity, you can start by using the Repo's getAll under the hood, and filtering in code. But I would suspect at scale, this might need to be refactored for performance. Be careful if you are using a criteria based Finder. You might be able to use a complex criteria syntax for in code filtering, but translating that to your data store query language the day you need the performance might turn out to be non trivial.Gris
D
4

In Domain Driven Design the repository is responsible for retrieving the whole Aggregate.

Dallon answered 7/9, 2012 at 11:28 Comment(10)
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.Dallon
if the repository is loading the whole aggregate, what is the purpose of a service layer ? in my opinion, the service is responsible for getting all data from differents repositories for aggregates. that's the real business. Repository is only concerned by data access for a single type of entity (add, get, update). As you said, some repositories are doing more. That's my problem ; i can't see why and whenProvost
The Repository is responsible for loading the Aggregate. A Service may use multiple Repositories to retrieve multiple different Aggregates if they are needed for the process. Please re-read the respective chapters in "Domain Driven Design", it takes some time to grasp the concepts.Dallon
@Provost Repository implementations know about the details of how to persist entities (typically in a database). They reside in the Infrastructure/persistence layer. Domain services don't deal with the database.Cantwell
@DennisTraub What is the best place to implement methods like GetProductsByCategoryId, Repositories or Service? I am also new to Onion Architecture and I am implementing these type of methods in Service layer. Please guide me am I on right track?Bushy
@UsmanKhalid I'd implement these methods in the repository. It's not a service's responsibility to retrieve domain objects. If a service needs them, it will get them through the repository. That's exactly what repositories are there for.Dallon
@DennisTraub Then what will be the responsibility of the Service layer? Will it act like a wrapper around repository just?Bushy
@DennisTraub What exactly I am doing is, I have a method 'Find(Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> filter = null)' inside IGeneralRepository which is accepting a filter. I am calling this function in my service like Find(e => e.CategoryId == CategoryId) to get Products By Category. Is this the right approach or I should take this to my Concrete Repository?Bushy
@UsmanKhalid Would you mind posting this as a question? It's difficult to answer in a comment.Dallon
@DennisTraub I post question, here is the link : #17442866Bushy
S
0

Onion and Hexagonal Architectures purpose is to invert the dependency from domain->data access.
Rather than having a UI->api->domain->data-access,
you'll have something like UI->api->domain**<-**data-access
To make your most important asset, the domain logic, is in the center and free of external dependencies. Generally by splitting the Repository into Interface/Implementation and putting the interface along with the business logic.

Now to services, there's more that one type of services:

  • Application Services: your controller and view model, which are external concerns for UI and display and are not part of the domain
  • Domain Services: which provide domain logic. In you're case if the logic you're having in application services starts to do more that it's presentation duties. you should look at extracting to a domain service
  • Infrastructure Services: which would, as with repositories, have an interface within the domain, and an implementation in the outer layers

@Bart Calixto, you may have a look at CQRS, building your view model is too complex when you're trying to use Repositories which you design for domain logic. you could just rewrite another repo for the ViewModel, using SQL joins for example, and it doesn't have to be in the domain

Striper answered 7/2, 2021 at 13:40 Comment(0)
O
0

is it the role of repository to load the complete hierarchy ?

Short answer: yes, if the repository's outcome is a hierarchy

The role of repository is to load whatever you want, in any shape you need, from the datasource (e.g. database, file system, Lucene index, etc).

Let's suppose a repository (interface) has the GetSomeHierarchyOrListBySomeCriteria operation - the operation, its parameters and its outcome are part of the application core!

Let's focus on the outcome: it doesn't matter it's shape (list, hierarchy, etc), the repository implementation is supposed to do everything necessary to return it.

If one is using a NoSql database than GetSomeHierarchyOrListBySomeCriteria implementation might need only one NoSql-database-query with no other conversions or transformations to get the desired outcome (e.g. hierarchy). For a SQL database on the other hand, the same outcome might imply multiple queries and complex conversions or transformations - but that's an implementation detail, the repository interface is the same.

repositories vs domain services

According to The Onion Architecture : part 1, and I'm pointing here about the official page, not someone's else interpretation:

The first layer around the Domain Model is typically where we would find interfaces that provide object saving and retrieving behavior, called repository interfaces. [...] Only the interface is in the application core.

Notice the Domain Services layer above Domain Model one.

Starting with the second official page, The Onion Architecture : part 2, the author forgets about Domain Services layer and is depicting IConferenceRepository as part of the Object Services layer which is right above Domain Model, replacing Domain Services layer! The Object Services layer continues in The Onion Architecture : part 3, so I ask: what Domain Services? :)))

It seems to me that author's intent for Object Services or Domain Services is to consist only of repositories, otherwise he leaves no clue for something else.

Overwinter answered 13/2, 2023 at 20:26 Comment(0)

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.