inner class Builder is in charge of creating Customer instances
mandatory fields – either primitive (e.g. id) or annotated with @NotNull (e.g. lastName) – are part of the builder's constructor
all optional fields setter methods on the builder are provided
newly created Customer instance is validated using the Validator#validate() method
impossible to retrieve an invalid Customer instance
extract the validation routine into a base class:
abstract class AbstractBuilder<T>
T build() throws ConstraintViolationException
protected abstract T buildInternal();
private static Validator validator
Concrete builder classes have to
extend AbstractBuilder
must implement the buildInternal() method:
Builder extends AbstractBuilder<Customer>
@Override
protected Customer buildInternal()
Implementing the Builder Pattern using the Bean Validation API
variation of the Builder design pattern for instantiating objects with multiple optional attributes.
this pattern frees you from providing multiple constructors with the different optional attributes as parameters (hard to maintain and hard to read for clients)
or providing setter methods for the optional attributes
(require objects to be mutable, can leave objects in inconsistent state)
well, dependency injection, but moreover, the soa approach to service design tends to force otherwise intelligent software engineers into doing procedural design
the services just end up being bags of method calls that implement any type of behavior, with the domain objects or entity beans being reduced to mere data structures with little responsibility or behavior beyond persistence. (which, in this anti-pattern, is typically mostly provided by the repository or dao class! ie. domain object crud)
stop asking themselves how this solution could be improved upon
It's a very impressive magic trick, and I wish I knew how to do it myself. But then, I'm just not like that. I'm always trying to poke holes in things - whether they were Invented Here or Not.
but that might be too high-level for your taste. Their are other, less-abstract options.
exception handling, this is one area where Spring does a good job: "The Spring Framework's handling of SQLException is one of its most useful features in terms of enabling easier JDBC development and maintenance. The Spring Framework provides JDBC support that abstracts SQLException and provides a DAO-friendly, unchecked exception hierarchy."
Utter nonsense and dishonest false advertising
Automatic connection closing (and other boiler-plate code) is obviously a hard requirement to be handled by the fwk.
Pffffff. It's a trivial requirement which I can solve in my framework with two lines of code in a @Disposes method. Did you see any connection handling in the code above?
I mean, seriously guys. The Spring stuff is trivial and not even very elegant. I guess it's easier for me to see that, since I spent half my career thinking about data access and designing data access APIs. But even so...
I don't understand. You hate the ability to write typesafw SQL that much?
Gavin King
Methods with long argument lists are a code smell.
It's something Spring copied from Hibernate 1.x, back in the days before varargs
It's something we removed in Hibernate2 and JPA.
there are a bunch of people
who don't want to use JPA.
They don't understand, or see the value of, using managed objects to represent their persistent data.
Um. Why? Why would that be a bad thing? I imagine that any app with 1000 queries has tens of thousands of classes already. What's the problem? Why is defining a class worse than writing a method?
Are you working from some totally bizarre metric where you measure code quality by number of classes?
note, the 'i' here, is mr. MARTIN FOWLER!!
and of course, eric evans hails from domain driven design fame
fundamental horror
it's so
contrary to the basic idea of object-oriented design
combine
data and process together
procedural style design
completely miss the point of what
object-oriented design is all about
It's also worth emphasizing that putting behavior into the domain
objects
should not contradict the solid approach of using layering to
separate domain logic from such things as persistence and presentation
responsibilities
logic that should be in a domain object is
domain logic
validations
calculations
business rules
One source of confusion in all this is that many OO experts do
recommend putting a layer of procedural services on top of a domain
model, to form a Service Layer
this isn't
an argument to make the domain model
void of behavior
service
layer advocates use a service layer in conjunction with a behaviorally
rich domain model.
... and has the *most value* to an organization investing in writing their own software
infrastructure software (eg. user interface, orm, application server-related frameworks) or plumbing code should be treated as commodities where possible, unless, the business consciously decides that a custom, home-grown implementation is absolutely required for patenting or other differentiation reasons and/or that no existing off-the-shelf solution can be used
but these cases should be rare! do not blindly fall for the not-invented-here syndrome
just don't hard-code this eager loading behavior by using jpa's FetchType.EAGER when annotating the entity beans
if you do, you force all clients of said entity beans to *always* eager fetch everything, even if the client doesn't want/need the full depth/breadth of the object graph
to eager load the relations when needed, try fetch joins (see item 5)
MDG Technologies allow users to extend Enterprise Architect's modeling capabilities to specific domains and notations. MDG Technologies seamlessly plug into Enterprise Architect to provide additional toolboxes, UML profiles, patterns, templates and other modeling resources.
Free MDG Technology downloads for Enterprise Architect:
EJB
MDG Technology for Enterprise Java Beans allows the user to model EJB entities and EJB sessions, complete with UML profiles for modeling EJB, EJB patterns and Code Management.
(requires Enterprise Architect 4.1 or later)
ICONIX AGILE DDT
ICONIX Agile Developer - Design-Driven Testing (DDT) streamlines the ICONIX modeling process, providing:
Convenient modeling of robustness diagrams
Automatic generation of sequence diagram structures from robustness diagrams
Transformation of robustness control elements to test diagrams
Transformation of sequence diagram elements to test diagrams
Transformation of requirement diagrams to test diagrams
Transformation between test cases and test classes. (JUnit & NUnit)
Built-in model validation rules for ICONIX robustness diagrams
(requires Enterprise Architect 7.5 or later)
Testing
MDG Technology for Testing helps users to rapidly model a wide range of testing procedures including component testing, SUT, Test Cases and more.
(requires Enterprise Architect 4.1 or later)
Instructions for loading an MDG Technology
EXE file:
Download and run the .exe file to install the MDG technology.
Open Enterprise Architect.
Select from the Main Menu Add-Ins | XYZ Technology | Load.
Built-in MDG Technologies:
Most of the MDG Technologies provided by Sparx Systems are built into Enterprise Architect directly. Depending on your edition of Enterprise Architect, some or all of the following MDG Technologies will be available:
foundations of domain-driven design:How models are chosen and evaluated;How multiple models coexist;How the patterns help avoid the common pitfalls, such as overly interconnected models;How developers and domain experts together in a DDD team engage in deeper exploration of their problem domain and make that understanding tangible as a practical software design.
note lack of dependency lines between a class and the types of it's attributes (eg. no dependency line drawn between Order->OrderStatus or WebUser->UserState. these are obvious and would just clutter the diagram)
this is one sensible interface naming option, if the interface encapsulates a cohesive set of behaviors
and yes, compared to blindly following the meaningless I+ convention, it requires some thought, but thinking of an appropriate name also forces you to (re)consider the interface's primary responsibility and how it fits into the overall design
imho, a class diagram for a domain model should be almost fluently readable english
Sometimes an Adjective doesn't make sense, but I'd still generally be using interfaces to model behavior, actions, capabilities, properties, etc,... not types.
Also, If you were really only going to make one User and call it User then what's the point of also having an IUser interface?
another anti-pattern... blindly create an interface for every class, even if there's only one implementation!! arrgghhhh!
consider introducing an interface when there are 2-3 well-distinguished, concrete implementations required
if you are going to have a few different types of users that need to implement a common interface, what does appending an "I" to the interface save you in choosing names of the implementations?
prefer not to use a prefix on interfaces:
hurts readability.
interfaces names should be as short and pleasant as possible
Implementing classes should be uglier to discourage their use.
allows additional behavior to be added to an existing class by wrapping
the original class and duplicating its interface and then delegating to the original