How to create rich domain objects while maintaing persistence ignorance?_问答_开发者

First off, I am using web forms without any ORM framework.

I have been struggling with how to make my domain objects as "smart" and "rich" as they can be without allowing them access to my service and repository layer. My most recent attempt was in creating a model for gift certificates for a online store.

The main recurring issues that I am seeing is that:

More and more logic keeps being introduced in the service layer. All the calls to the repository must pass through the service layer and each time the parameters are validated (eg - exists in db, etc). As a result my service layer is growing, but my domain objects just have some simple contractual validations. Even object validation is in the service layer since if the ID of the item is null, it will check the db to ensure that the code is unique. IHMO, the consumer of the system should not care if the functionality they need deals with persistence or not.
I have a separate POCO for transaction log entries for when a gift certificate is redeemed. I assume that I should put a list or collection of these transactions as a property of my Gift Certificate model, but I am still unsure of when that property should be filled. Do I add a separate method on the service for loading the transactions into a object on demand (eg - LoadTransactions(gc object)) or should the transactions be automatically loaded any time a existing gift certificate or list of gift certificates are requested (or maybe a option in the getGCs to load transactions as well)
What about computed fields like "Available Balance"... should I even have properties like this on my object? Anytime I am working with the object, I will need to keep updating that property to insure it is up to date. Right now I simply have a service method GetBalanceByCode(gc code).
Even actions like redeeming a gift certificate are开发者_StackOverflow中文版 basically 100% data-centric (take some input parameters, validate them and add a transaction log entry to db).

More and more logic keeps being introduced in the service layer (...) Even object validation is in the service layer (...)

Validation is not the best candidate as domain model element. Input (my personal preference is that it's represented as commands) should be validated at application service level. Domain logic should model how business work and assume that all the arguments are valid. Good candidates for domain logic are computations for example: you want to have them in one single place and have them well tested.

I have a separate POCO for transaction log entries for when a gift certificate is redeemed.

This kind of object is known as Event. You can learn about Events from Eric Evans 'What I learnt since the Blue Book' presentation. Event is basically an entity which is immutable. Events are quite often aggregates on their own because usually there's lots of them. By making them aggregates, you don't have any problems with lazy loading them as part of other objects's collection.

What about computed fields like "Available Balance"... should I even have properties like this on my object?

Computed properties are kind of logic that naturally fits in domain model, however it's debatable if a better approach is to compute the value each time or compute it when object changes and persist it in the DB.

Even actions like redeeming a gift certificate are basically 100% data-centric (take some input parameters, validate them and add a transaction log entry to db).

This action would be modeled as creating a CertificateRedeemed event. This event would be probably created by Certificate aggregate or some other object. This blog post by Udi Dahan can be helpful

This is not an entirely easy question to answer given the fact that domain models are very subjective, and rely a lot on your...well, domain. It sounds like you are actually creating something similar to The Onion Architecture (and Part 2) described by Jeffery Palermo. This is not a bad pattern to use, though DDD purists will tell you it leads to "anemic" domain models (where your domain objects are basically Data holders with no behavior). The thing is, that may be exactly what you need in your scenario. A "full, rich" domain model may be overkill for what you are doing (and given your last bullet point it sounds like that could be the case).

You may not need a domain model for your system at all. You could be well served with some View Models (that is simple data models to describe your view) and have your UI send some DTOs to through your services to put the data in the database. If you find something that requires a more complex approach, then you can apply a richer domain model to that component. Also remember that you don't necessarily have one domain model in your system. There can, and in many cases should, be different models that describe things differently (often grouped into Bounded Contexts). The overall goal of DDD is to simplify otherwise complex systems. If its causing you additional complexity, then you may be taking the long way round.

There is an approach called DCI (data-context-interactions) which is supposed to be alternative to the old school OOP. Although it does not address explicitly the issue of persistence ignorance, your question brought it to my mind, because it deals with similar issues.

In DCI domain objects are small data-holders with only a little logic, like in your case, and interactions between them are implemented separately. The algorithm of interaction is not spread through small methods of several objects, but it is in one place, which might make it more lucid and understandable.

I think it is still rather academic thing than a solution we should start implementing tomorrow, but someone who comes across this question might be interested.