Archive for May, 2009
Validation in Domain Driven Design
There’s a great discussion on Jeff Palermo’s blog about entity validation patterns. Jeff takes the position that your domain objects (or entities) should not have validation logic “baked-in” to the class itself. Instead, you should separate the validation routines into separate classes that you can use to validate the object on demand.
There are two advantages to this approach. The first is that you can use different validators for the same object in different circumstances. For example, the validation you might perform prior to storing the domain object in a persistence layer could be different than the validation routine used to validate input from the GUI layer.
The second advantage is that separating the validation logic from the data itself makes it easier to work with ORM or serialization frameworks. Most of these frameworks encourage the use of Plain Old Objects, that is, objects without special attributes or interfaces that help with these mapping and serialization tasks. (See Wikipedia’s article on Plain Old Java Objects, for example.)
Those are powerful arguments, but I’m still not convinced.
Trade-offs
As a practical matter, Jeff’s advice is sound. It’s much easier to move business logic into the helper classes that surround your entity model. You get better tool support and more flexibility. But there’s two things about his approach that bother me. Judging by some of the excellent comments on his article, other programmers are bothered by them as well.
First, stripping away behavior from your domain objects is a recognized anti-pattern in object oriented code. Martin Fowler calls it the Anemic Domain Model. It harkens back to the days of procedural programming, where data and business logic were strictly separated. If you’re an OO purist, this is a red flag.
From an OO perspective, the need to validate the same object in different ways suggests that what you actually need to do is create more objects. Rather than pass a stripped-down data-transfer object (DTO) all the way from your data storage layer up to your GUI, you should have a bunch of intermediate objects to help transition the data and enforce proper behavior.
But I’m not an OO snob. Writing a whole bunch of extra classes to move information between tiers in my application is a hassle. I’ve done it before, and we’re doing it now with Infovark, but for most projects it just isn’t justified. Especially if you have to wrestle with various application frameworks to deal with correctly modeled but more complicated domain objects.
The second objection I have is that if we follow Jeff’s advice, we have to accept that bad data will creep into our domain. Jeff knows that this is a hard sell. It’s why he titled his article “The fallacy of the always-valid entity.”
Whew. That’s rough. That requires a whole different programming mindset. What about the problem of Garbage In, Garbage Out? Can we really create programs robust enough to handle business objects that might, at any moment, contain meaningless gibberish?
I don’t know. For now, as appealing as Jeff’s idea is, I’ll stick to always-valid approach. What do you think?
Review: Framework Design Guidelines
Framework Design Guidelines
I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I really enjoyed Framework Design Guidelines by Krzysztof Cwalina and Brad Abrams. I mean, it’s a book about coding standards.
Maybe I ought to get out more… but before I leave the glare of my monitor behind, I’ll type up my review.
Code is literature, not language
Computing languages, just like human languages, have grammar and syntax. There are correct ways to form sentences and paragraphs, with well-defined rules (and exceptions). Just like word processors can check spelling and verify basic sentence structure, most IDEs today can ensure your code will compile and run.
That doesn’t mean that your story or program is an easy or enjoyable read, though. Most newspapers have accumulated extensive guidelines for matters of style and substance, and most software companies have their own guides as well. If you’re writing as part of a team project, or writing programs intended to be used by other programmers, it’s important to make your code consistent, clear, and direct.
Just like many journalists keep a copy of The Associated Press Stylebook or the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage handy — even if they don’t actually work for the New York Times or the AP — lots of programmers keep a copy of Microsoft’s Framework Design Guidelines as reference.
Or they should. That’s probably my roots as a maintenance programmer showing.
Know your genre
Ideally, you’d want any code you write for other Windows programmers’ use to look as if it came from Microsoft itself. That is, you want it to feel like a natural extension of the .NET framework and not some third-party bolt-on with odd stylistic touches. You’d also like your code to use the full power and expressiveness of .NET, and not appear like some watered-down Java-esque port. (Far too many open source projects retain awkward Java-isms after being converted to .NET, in my opinion. NUnit is a notable exception.)
This helps your fellow programmers gain a better understanding of your code in less time. And it can also make your programming tasks easier, too. Just like design patterns can help you lay out your application architecture, programming guidelines can help you structure your code at the class or method level.
About the book
The Framework Design Guidelines covers a lot of ground in its 400 pages. It describes what conventions Microsoft uses when designing types, methods, and exceptions. It also describes the naming and design patterns that Microsoft uses in their public APIs. The topics are grouped by category and heavily cross referenced, making it easy to find your way around. The rationale of each guideline is explained, and the authors indicate the strength of each recommendation by marking it with the terms Do, Consider, Avoid or Do Not.
But the best part of the book is the stories and comments given by members of the Microsoft team. These are sprinkled throughout the book and give insight into why the guideline exists. Some of these discuss lessons Microsoft learned the hard way, places in the .NET Framework where the rules are violated, and how real-world programmers feel about certain guidelines. You can get a flavor of these by checking out the Framework Design Guidelines section of Brad Abrams‘ blog.
If you find his posts interesting or helpful, you’ll feel the same way about the book. Highly recommended.
