N-layered database application without using an OR

问题:

I'm looking for pointers and information here, I'll make this CW since I suspect it has no single one correct answer. This is for C#, hence I'll make some references to Linq below. I also apologize for the long post. Let me summarize the question here, and then the full question follows.

Summary: In a UI/BLL/DAL/DB 4-layered application, how can changes to the user interface, to show more columns (say in a grid), avoid leaking through the business logic layer and into the data access layer, to get hold of the data to display (assuming it's already in the database).

---

Let's assume a layered application with 3(4) layers:

• User Interface (UI)
• Business Logic Layer (BLL)
• Data Access Layer (DAL)
• Database (DB; the 4th layer)

In this case, the DAL is responsible for constructing SQL statements and executing them against the database, returning data.

Is the only way to "correctly" construct such a layer to just always do "select *"? To me that's a big no-no, but let me explain why I'm wondering.

Let's say that I want, for my UI, to display all employees that have an active employment record. By "active" I mean that the employment records from-to dates contains today (or perhaps even a date I can set in the user interface).

In this case, let's say I want to send out an email to all of those people, so I have some code in the BLL that ensures I haven't already sent out email to the same people already, etc.

For the BLL, it needs minimal amounts of data. Perhaps it calls up the data access layer to get that list of active employees, and then a call to get a list of the emails it has sent out. Then it joins on those and constructs a new list. Perhaps this could be done with the help of the data access layer, this is not important.

What's important is that for the business layer, there's really not much data it needs. Perhaps it just needs the unique identifier for each employee, for both lists, to match upon, and then say "These are the unique identifiers of those that are active, that you haven't already sent out an email to". Do I then construct DAL code that constructs SQL statements that only retrieve what the business layer needs? Ie. just "SELECT id FROM employees WHERE ..."?

What do I do then for the user interface? For the user, it would perhaps be best to include a lot more information, depending on why I want to send out emails. For instance, I might want to include some rudimentary contact information, or the department they work for, or their managers name, etc., not to say that I at least name and email address information to show.

How does the UI get that data? Do I change the DAL to make sure I return enough data back to the UI? Do I change the BLL to make sure that it returns enough data for the UI? If the object or data structures returned from the DAL back to the BLL can be sent to the UI as well, perhaps the BLL doesn't need much of a change, but then requirements of the UI impacts a layer beyond what it should communicate with. And if the two worlds operate on different data structures, changes would probably have to be done to both.

And what then when the UI is changed, to help the user even further, by adding more columns, how deep would/should I have to go in order to change the UI? (assuming the data is present in the database already so no change is needed there.)

One suggestion that has come up is to use Linq-To-SQL and IQueryable, so that if the DAL, which deals with what (as in what types of data) and why (as in WHERE-clauses) returned IQueryables, the BLL could potentially return those up to the UI, which could then construct a Linq-query that would retrieve the data it needs. The user interface code could then pull in the columns it needs. This would work since with IQuerables, the UI would end up actually executing the query, and it could then use "select new { X, Y, Z }" to specify what it needs, and even join in other tables, if necessary.

This looks messy to me. That the UI executes the SQL code itself, even though it has been hidden behind a Linq frontend.

But, for this to happen, the BLL or the DAL should not be allowed to close the database connections, and in an IoC type of world, the DAL-service might get disposed of a bit sooner than the UI code would like, so that Linq query might just end up with the exception "Cannot access a disposed object".

So I'm looking for pointers. How far off are we? How are you dealing with this? I consider the fact that changes to the UI will leak through the BLL and into the DAL a very bad solution, but right now it doesn't look like we can do better.

Please tell me how stupid we are and prove me wrong?

And note that this is a legacy system. Changing the database schema isn't in the scope for years yet, so a solution to use ORM objects that would essentially do the equivalent of "select *" isn't really an option. We have some large tables that we'd like to avoid pulling up through the entire list of layers.

回答1:

Use the concept of a view model (or data transfer objects) that are UI consumption cases. It will be the job of the BLL to take these objects and if the data is incomplete, request additional data (which we call model). Then the BLL can make correct decisions about what view models to return. Don't let your model (data) specifics permeate to the UI.

UI <-- (viewmodel) ---> BLL <-- (model) --> Peristence/Data layers

This decoupling lets to scale you application better. The persistence independence I think just naturally falls out of this approach, as construction and specification of the view models could done flexibly in the BLL by using linq2ql or another orm technology.

回答2:

This is not at all an easy problem to solve. I have seen many attempts (including the IQueryable approach you describe), but none that are perfect. Unfortunately we are still waiting for the perfect solution. Until then, we will have to make do with imperfection.

I completely agree that DAL concerns should not be allowed to leak through to upper layers, so an insulating BLL is necessary.

Even if you don't have the luxury of redefining the data access technology in your current project, it still helps to think about the Domain Model in terms of Persistence Ignorance. A corrolary of Persistence Ignorance is that each Domain Object is a self-contained unit that has no notion of stuff like database columns. It is best to enforce data integretiy as invariants in such objects, but this also means that an instantiated Domain Object will have all its constituent data loaded. It's an either-or proposition, so the key becomes to find a good Domain Model that ensures that each Domain Object hold (and must be loaded with) an 'appropriate' amount of data.

Too granular objects may lead to chatty DAL interfaces, but too coarse-grained objects may lead to too much irrelevant data being loaded.

A very important exercise is to analyze and correctly model the Domain Model's Aggregates so that they strike the right balance. The book Domain-Driven Design contains some very illuminating analyses of modeling Aggregates.

Another strategy which can be helpful in this regard is to aim to apply the Hollywood Principle as much as possible. The main problem you describe concerns Queries, but if you can shift your focus to be more Command-oriented, you may be able to define some more coarse-grained interfaces that doesn't require you to always load too much data.

I'm not aware of any simple solution to this challenge. There are techniques like the ones I described above that can help you address some of the issues, but in the end it is still an art that takes experience, skill and discipline.