Defining the relationships between domain objects, as well as their own
rules, data, and behavior is up to the developer.
Good OOP practices :
involved objects have just a few, well-defined responsibilities, and
model doesn't get its pristine (clean, pure) ecosystem polluted
with database logic. Add to this that shifting the model from one
infrastructure to another can be done in a fairly painless fashion, and you'll
get to see why this approach is very appealing when developing applications that
must scale well.
***** 11111 **
http://www.sitepoint.com/building-a-domain-model/ February 24, 2012 By Alejandro
Gervasio
//HOW TO CONSUME MODEL - Putting the Domain Model to Work
//blog domain model : underlying INTERFACES AND CLASSES living in happy ignorance about the existence of any type of persistence mechanism that may be implemented down the line, be it a database, a web service, or anything else
//network of rules and rich relationships with each other
//current domain
object implementations can be replaced with custom ones without much fuss
In this case each object graph is spawned by using plain Dependency Injection, which is sufficient for demonstrative purposes.
If the situation warrants, however, object graph creation should be delegated to more versatile structures, such as a Dependency Injection Container or a Service Locator. In either case, at this point the model is already doing its business as expected.
***** 22222 **
https://www.sitepoint.com/integrating-the-data-mappers/ March 16, 2012 By Alejandro Gervasio
Basic mapping module which will allow you to move data easily between the blog's model and a MySQL database, all while keeping them neatly isolated from one other.
We'll be trying to connect a batch of mapping classes to a blog's domain model.
DAL in question will be made up of just a couple of components: the first one will be a simple database adapter interface, whose contract is interface DatabaseAdapterInterface. Contract allows us to create different database adapters at runtime and perform a few common tasks, such as connecting to the database and running CRUD operations without much fuss.
Now we need at least one implementer of the interface that does all these cool things. The proud cavalier that will assume this responsibility will be a non-canonical class PdoAdapter implements DatabaseAdapterInterface.
ALTER TABLE `admins` ADD `email` VARCHAR(60) NULL AFTER `username`; CREATE TABLE posts ( id INTEGER UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO\_INCREMENT, title VARCHAR(100) DEFAULT NULL, content TEXT, PRIMARY KEY (id) ); CREATE TABLE users ( id INTEGER UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO\_INCREMENT, name VARCHAR(45) DEFAULT NULL, email VARCHAR(45) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ); CREATE TABLE comments ( id INTEGER UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO\_INCREMENT, content TEXT, user_id INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, post_id INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id), FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES users(id), FOREGIN KEY (post_id) REFERENCES posts(id) );
At this point we've implemented a simple DAL which we can use for persisting the blog's domain model in MySQL without sweating too much during the process. Now we need to add the middle men to the picture, that is data mappers, so any impedance mismatches can be handled quietly behind the scenes.
Implementing a Bi-directional Mapping Layer - relational mappers
Quite a ways away from being trivial. That's why ORM libraries like Doctrine live.
Encapsulating as much mapping logic as possible within abstract class AbstractDataMapper
couple of generic finders, all of the logic required for pulling in data from a specified table, which is then used for reconstituting domain objects in a valid state. Because reconstitutions should be delegated down the hierarchy to refined implementations, the createEntity() method has been declared abstract.
Set of concrete mappers that will deal with blog posts, comments, and u sers :
PostMapperInterface and class PostMapper extends AbstractDataMapper implements PostMapperInterface
CommentMapperInterface and class CommentMapper extends AbstractDataMapper implements CommentMapperInterface
UserMapperInterface and class UserMapper extends AbstractDataMapper implements UserMapperInterface
PostMapper extends its abstract parent and injects in the constructor a comment mapper (still undefined), in order to handle in sync both posts and comments without revealing to the outside world the complexities of creating the whole object graph.
CommentMapper class behaves quite similar to its sibling PostMapper. In short, it asks for a user mapper in the constructor, so that a specific comment can be tied up to the corresponding commenter.
We build up from scratch an easy-to-manage mapping layer, capable of moving data back and forward between a simplistic blog domain model and MySQL.
Mapping the Blog's Domain Objects to and from the DAL
Mappers' APIs do the actual hard work and HIDE UNDERLYING DB FROM MODEL. This ability, though, is best appreciated from app. layer's perspective. Let's wire up all the mapper graphs together:
***** 33333
If you have to write your own code to call the framework components, then it is not a framework, it is a library. A "true" FRAMEWORK IS MINI-APPLICATION TO GENERATE AND RUN YOUR APP COMPONENTS.
Eg templating libraries to deal with creating markup, image libraries...
Framework brings together all (or most) of the common functionality needed to build an app
provides a STANDARD WAY TO BUILD and deploy applications
is abstraction in which SW providing GENERIC FUNCTIONALITY can be selectively applied / changed by additional user-written code, thus providing application-specific SW
is universal, REUSABLE SW environment that provides particular functionality as part of a larger SW platform to facilitate development of SW applications
IoC is about who initiates control messages - DOES YOUR CODE CALL INTO A FW, or does it plug something into a framework, and then the framework calls back?
Hollywood principle "Don't call us, we'll call you (details)."
Eg game knows when a player can make decisions and prompts the player accordingly, rather than
the player making the decision.
Unlike in (set of) libraries intended to provide reuse or in normal user apps, CODE FLOW (OF CONTROL MESSAGES) IN SW FW IS DICTATED BY SW FW, not by the caller method.
If you're using a
library, objects and methods implemented by the library
are instantiated and
invoked by your custom app.
You need to know which objects to instantiate /
call.
If you're using a framework, you implement objects and methods
that are custom to your app and they are instantiated and invoked by fw.
Fw
defines the flow of control for app - embodies some abstract design,
with
more behavior built in. In order to use it you need to insert
your behavior
into various places in the framework either by subclassing
or by plugging in
your own classes. Fw code then calls your code at these points.
http://principles-wiki.net/principles:dependency_inversion_principle
Eg high-level module A --- uses ---> low-level module B.
When applying DIP, both modules --- depend ---> on abstraction - interface, so A and B can be built, used, deployed independently
(note that in UML diagrams all arrows point to dependency)
When DIP is not applied, only the low-level modules can be reused independently. The higher-level modules depend on the others, so trying to reuse them makes it necessary to either also reuse the lower-level modules or to change the higher-level module. The former is often not wanted because reuse is often done in another context where the lower-level modules do not fit. And the latter is error-prone and requires additional work as it requires changes to already working modules.
High-level module (your business logic), wants to be able to add or remove users to the DB. Instead of it talking to the database directly, it defines an interface called ClientRepository which contains the methods the business logic needs. Then a MySQLClientRepository concretion implements that interface and uses a database library to submit the queries.
class Mailer
{
// Methods for a Mailer class
}
class SendWelcomeMessage
{
private $mailer;
public function __construct(Mailer $mailer)
{
// This is a violation of DIP as the method is relying upon a concretion rather than an abstraction.
$this->mailer = $mailer;
}
}Term IoC was getting overloaded with different meanings - was the reason Fowler coined term DIP - early '90s.
About libraries vs fws, inversion he's talking about is Hollywood principle "Don't call us, we'll call you (details)."
https://martinfowler.com/articles/dipInTheWild.html 21 May 2013
Inversion is
BOTTOMS UP DESIGN - reversal of direction in TOP-DOWN DESIGN :
high-level
design described by smaller parts
and therefore it directly depends on them.
Eg business requirement of reporting on energy savings depends on
gathering
data, which depends on executing Sql. Dependencies follow
how the problem is
decomposed. The more detailed something is,
the more likely it will change.
We have a high-level idea depending
on something that is likely to change.
In 2004, Martin Fowler published an article on Dependency Injection (DI)
and Inversion of Control (IoC) . Is the DIP the same as DI, or IoC?
No, but
they play nice together. When Robert Martin first discussed DIP,
he equated
it a first-class combination of the Open Closed Principle
and Liskov
Substitution Principle, important enough to warrant its own name.
DI is about wiring, IoC is about direction, and DIP is about shape.
Dependency Injection is about how one object knows about another, dependent object
(master table does not know about its details which have FK - knowlege about
master).
DI is about how one object acquires a dependency.
IoC is about who initiates the call. If your code initiates a call, it is not IoC, if the container/system/library calls back into code that you provided it, is it IoC.
DIP is about the level of the abstraction in messages sent from your
code
to the thing it is calling. To be sure, using DI or IoC with DIP
tends to be more expressive, powerful and domain-aligned,
but they are about
different dimensions, or forces, in an overall problem.
Several examples
that all share common thread: raising abstraction level
of a dependency to be
closer to the domain, as limited by system needs.
Hide DB Behind
Something Domain-related
A repository is a gateway to a conceptual (maybe
actual) potentially
large collection of durable objects. Typical interface
might include
basic CRUD operations (assuming the domain calls for them) but
then we'll
add methods that make sense for the needs of the system.
Domain analysis is a form of Modeling. A key thing about modeling,
is that you are only considering details that are important.
Domain here is
limited by some feature set rather than
a mythical domain that exists
outside of such context.
In a sense, this is YAGNI applied to domain
analysis.
Not "best practices", but good ideas for a given context
Design principles
Should be "violated" sometimes
Are often conflicting (at
odds) with each other
Often mix together for something even better than when
used in isolation
Often overlap with other ones
There are no free lunches,
all abstractions have a cost
Like the term "best practices" I wonder if
"design principles" even makes
sense as a nikname (moniker = often a
shortened name).
In the case of the SOLID principles, I think of them more
as up front ideas
that I often come back to due to familiarity. I often fall
back into
the basics like COHESION and COUPLING, adding another level of
indirection.
By calling something a principle, when I'm pragmatic I will
probably
Preferable is to REPLACE "PRINCIPLE" WITH GUIDELINE.
Whether
we call something a principle or a guideline, the ability to make
an informed
decision to disregard a design principle (a so-called Journeyman
behavior
according to The Seven Stages of Expertise in Software
http://www.wayland-informatics.com/The%20Seven%20Stages%20of%20Expertise%20in%20Software.htm),
is a good place to strive towards.
DIP like SOLID (five
design principles intended to make software designs more
understandable,
flexible and maintainable) is simple to state but deep
in its application.
SOLID is subset of many principles stated by Robert C. Martin.
Single
responsibility principle - class should only have single r.
that is, only
changes to one part of the software's specification
should be able to affect
the specification of the class.
Open-closed principle SW entities...
should be open for extension,
but closed for modification.
Liskov
substitution principle - Objects in a program should be
replaceable with
instances of their subtypes without altering
the correctness of that program.
See also design by contract.
Interface segregation principle - Many
client-specific interfaces
are better than one general-purpose interface.
Dependency inversion principle - One should "depend upon abstractions,
[not] concretions
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID :
Code
reuse
Inheritance (object-oriented programming)
Package principles
DRY
Don't repeat yourself
GRASP (object-oriented design, not related to the SOLID
design principle)
General Responsibility Assignment Software Patterns (or
Principles).
Guidelines for assigning responsibility to classes and objects
in OO Design.
KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid - minimalist concept)
YAGNI (You aren't gonna need it - �ta �e vam to npr excell a ne pdf izvje�taji)
preprogramiravanje i preprojektiranje.
Always implement things when you
actually need them,
never when you just foresee that you need them.
YAGNI
is a principle of XP (extreme programming),
type of agile software
development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming
HAS DEFAULT BEHAVIOR: must be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.
NON-MODIFIABLE FW CODE: u sers should not modify SW fw code but can extend it
EXTENSIBILITY: can be extended by the user usually by selective
overriding
or specialized by user code to provide specific functionality
Component = Module like Oracle Forms .fmb
Symfony's
HttpFoundation is a good example - providing a basic I/O framework.
It's not
just used by Symfony, but also by Drupal 8, Laravel and Silex (that I know of).
Packages or Bundles
Packages are groups of related
components. Twig is one example. Unlike a component
which is usually a more
or less drop it in decision, Packages tend to have more
far reaching effects
on the application since taking advantage of them will
require some
forethought and outside code will need to be aware of their API.
The smallest frameworks and the largest packages is a very blurry line,
frameworks style themselves to be more complete solutions than packages tend to be.
Frameworks
Frameworks provide a road map to solving a particular type of problem. There are
What makes Frameworks distinct from packages is they:
Have a distinct over arching paradigm, either Model-View-Controller
or Model-View-Presenter
Have components and packages to implement the areas
of that paradigm.
Have a configuration methodology set up in PHP or non-PHP
files, usually XML or INI or YAML.
Largest frameworks are almost
indistinguishable from apps and are ready to go from install,
but the
distinguishing line here is whether a non-programmer can be expected
to set
the code up and get it running. If not then, no matter how large
and
featured it is, it's still a framework, not an app.
More framework can
do, harder it is to customize it. This isn't always true though,
and it also
depends on what area of the app is being customized.
The best frameworks
tolerate having their components and packages switched out
though the
incoming packages will usually need a wrapper of some sort especially
if the
interface in that area hasn't been standardized.
Apps
If a
non-programmer can be expected to install and configure the app
without
touching a single line of code then it's an App.
Drupal 8 is one example,
and a rather huge one at that.
Apps may or may not have further customization
possible, most popular ones have.
The smaller apps out there can be smaller
than some frameworks.
The distinctive feature of an app is INSTALLER CODE that
Increasingly in
the PHP world the leading applications bring together
components and packages
from various vendors.
The only major PHP project that doesn't anymore is
WordPress which can get away
with this largely due to its marketshare - even
then I've seen Wordpress plugins
make use of component libraries. Given time
even Wordpress will probably evolve
over, though it's going to have to get
rid of its horrid "The Loop" to do so.
44444 **
http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2014/05/08/SingleReponsibilityPrinciple.html
08 May 2014 by Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)
Breaking up a large piece of
code
=================================
into snippets : "sections"
"modules" or "classes".
Code is not responsible for bug fixes or refactoring but programmer is.
To isolate your modules from the
complexities of the organization,
ee design your systems such that each
module is responsible (responds to)
the needs of just that one business
function. :
SRP (SINGLE RESPONSIBILITY PRINCIPLE) is about people
(single person or tightly coupled group of people
representing a single
narrowly defined business function)
who request method changes (many cooks
spoil soup).
Uncle Bob is saying that SRP has replaced SoC (SEPARATION OF
CONCERNS)
because SRP now includes ideas of Coupling and Cohesion which SoC
did not.
Ee:
Gather together the things that CHANGE FOR THE SAME
REASONS (PEOPLE !).
Separate those things that change for different reasons.
This is just another way to define cohesion and coupling.
We want to
increase the cohesion between things that change for the same reasons,
and we
want to decrease the coupling between those things that change for different
reasons.
Remember that the reasons for change are people. It is people
who request changes.
And you don't want to confuse those people, or yourself,
by mixing together
code that many different people care about for different
reasons.
This is the reason we SEPARATE CONCERNS (relevant things -
responsibilities).
Concern can be as general as details of HW the code is
being
optimized for, or as specific as name of a class to instantiate.
we do not put SQL in JSPs
Eg :
public class Employee {
public Money calculatePay(); //how much
particular employee should be paid
public void savePay(); //stores data
managed by Employee object onto enterprise DB
public String reportHours();
//returns string worked_number_of_hours
}
CEO = chief executive officer =
chief operating officer = managing director
=corporate executive
responsible for the operations of the firm; reports to a board of directors; may
appoint other managers (including a president)
Reporting to that CEO are
C-level executives eg :
CFO = responsible for controlling the FINANCES of
the company eg for calculatePay()
COO = responsible for managing the
OPERATIONS of the company eg for reportHours()
CTO = responsible for the
TECHNOLOGY infrastructure and development eg for savePay()
3-Tier
Architecture - separating GUI logic, business logic and database logic
is
sufficient to satisfy SRP.
Classes contain one method each, and each method contains one line of code :
broken encapsulation
low cohesion
high coupling
SRP == SoC + Coupling + Cohesion