I am interested in learning about best practices for persistence code in Symfony2 when not using an ORM and not having objects represent my table rows.
One way would be to create a model / dao directory and store classes with wrapper methods (e.g. getPost($id), addPost($title, $content) for a blog post). Then access these methods inside the service class which has similarly named methods as getPost($id) etc. which might just be calling the wrapper methods in the model / dao classes or doing a bit more work (preprocessing data to send to db, postprocessing data received from db).
Do you think this is a reasonable approach or is there something better you can think of? Thanks.
Related
I am learning the popular MVC and trying to implement it in PHP. I am designing a framework with a pure OOP fashion (though I am not expert in PHP's OOP ability. I only have moderate knowledge about it). An example implementation of this framework as shown in the following figure.
In this framework I added a Data Access Layer, DAL, (a class to deal with the connection, executing query and transport to and from the database) to abstract the physical database from the rest of the system to easy change of the data source. If a system is only bind to one database of one particular type, this layer is expected to presented in the system using only one object with one connection to the database. And this object will be a dependency for all the Data Mapper objects (i.e., User mapper, Product Mapper).
I am looking for your comments on where to initiate the DAL object in the system. I can create the object in the front controller (index.php) and transport all the way to Data Mapper objects. But it is an anti-pattern according to Here and Here. Even for the same reason, we cannot initiate the DAL object within the factories (Factories can be separated in multiple classes for handling complexities as per Clean code approach ). I cannot use Singleton as that is also going to create lots of problem according to this. So, in your opinion, what is the best practice and place where I can initiate this object and pass it to Data Mapper objects?
N.B.: I disregard the View Logic here as my concern do not have any relation with Views.
I've written a small RESTful PHP backend using the Slim framework (http://www.slimframework.com/) that interfaces with a MySQL database, and right now I just have one class doing all the DB interactions and it's getting kinda big. So it's time to organize it a little more cleanly.
So based on what I understand from MVC, a better way to do this might be to implement a model layer like so:
each logical entity in the system will be implemented with a data class. I.E. user accounts: a class called "Account" with getId(), getName(), getEmail(), etc etc
and corresponding factory objects, i.e. AccountFactory which owns the DB connection and creates an Account class to manipulate elsewhere in the business logic layer.
The business logic layer would still be pretty simple, maybe a class called MyApplication that instantiates factories and uses them to respond to the RESTful API calls.
Business logic might be, for example, matching two accounts together based on geographical location. So in this case, I would just be testing on the data in two separate Account objects instead of the raw data loaded from the database.
But that seems like a lot of refactoring time spent to do basically the same thing. Why wouldn't I want to just use the plain array data I load from the database? It's not DB-independent, sure, but I don't really plan on switching away from MySQL at the moment anyway.
Am I approaching this in the correct way?
Well, partly.
The first point describes a model - the M in MVC. Abstracting your "business logic" from this model makes sense in many ways. One use case could be a website that interacts with the same data as the REST API. You could reuse the model and only need to build new controllers.
The "business logic"/"layer" would probably the controller - the C in MVC. However I would not give the factory objects ownership of the DB connection, as some use cases may want to use multiple factory objects but should use the same database connection...
I suggest you read more about the structure and pro's and con's of the MVC approach.
when you start from scratch the best is to :
have a ORM (which mean that you must have relations in your MySQL database with foreign keys etc.). Thats very quick way to manage database management in your program.
Create your home-made class for each entitiy = 1 class.
The best pratices are generally to have an ORM but it can be a bit heavy (it depends on your architecture and application).
In your case put an ORM seems to be a lot too much cause you developped a lot.
It depends of the future of your application : will it grow again ? will a lot of developper will develop on it ?
For a small/medium size you can easily refactor a bit your class by big theme, ex : 1 class for your 3 biggest entity in which you have the more requests. That will tidy a bit the mess and organize things, and then you can migrate your new classes for eqch new entity. For the old ones you can migrate step by stepm or not
Another good practice is to have getters and setters $this->getter_id(); $this->setter_id( $in_nId ); That will help you a lot if you need to change some db fields
Looking through several tutorials and books regarding data access in Zend Framework, it seems as if most people do data access within their models (Active Record Pattern) or even controllers. I strongly disagree with that. Therefore I want to have a Data Access Layer (DAL) so that my domain layer remains portable by not having any "ZF stuff" in it. I have searched around but have not really found exactly what I wanted. Heads up: I am new to ZF.
DAL structure
So, the first problem is where to place the Data Access Layer. While it could certainly be placed within the library folder and adding a namespace to the autoloader, that does not seem logical as it is specific to my application (so the applications folder is suitable). I am using a modular structure. I am thinking of using the below structure:
/application/modules/default/dal/
However, I am not sure how include this folder so that I can access the classes within the controllers (without using includes/requires). If anyone knows how to accomplish this, that would be super! Any other ideas are of course also welcome.
The idea is to have my controllers interact with the Data Access Objects (DAO). Then the DAOs use models that can then be returned to the controllers. By doing this, I can leave my models intact.
Implementation
In other languages, I have previously implemented DAOs per model, e.g. DAL_User. This resulted in an awful lot of DAO classes. Is there a smarter way to do this (using a single class does not seem easy with foreign keys)?
I would also appreciate suggestions on how to implement my DAO classes in ZF. I have not spent an awful lot of time reading about all of the components available for database interaction, so any ideas are very welcome. I suspect that there is something smarter than standard PDO available (which probably uses PDO internally, though). Name drops would be sufficient.
Sorry for the many questions. I just need a push in the right direction.
Well, the first thing you have to take into account when dealing with the Data Access Layer, is that this layer also have sub-layers, it's unusual to find folders called "dal" in modern frameworks (I'm taking as basis both Zend Framework and Symfony).
Second, about ActiveRecord, you must be aware that by default Zend Frameworks doesn't implement it. Most of the tutorials take the easiest path to teach new concepts. With simple examples, the amount of business logic is minimal, so instead of adding another layer of complexity (mapping between database and model's objects) they compose the domain layer (model) with two basic patterns: Table Data Gateway and Row Data Gateway. Which is enough information for a beginner to start.
After analyzing it, you will see some similarity between ActiveRecord
and Row Data Gateway patterns. The main difference is that
ActiveRecord objects (persistable entities) carries business logic and
Row Data Gateway only represents a row in the database. If you add
business logic on a object representing a database row, then it will
become an ActiveRecord object.
Additionally, following the Zend Framework Quick Start, on the domain model section, you will realize that there's a third component, which uses the Data Mapper Pattern.
So, if the main purpose of your DAL is to map data between business objects (model) and your storage, the responsibility of this task is delegated to the Data Mappers as follows:
class Application_Model_GuestbookMapper
{
public function save(Application_Model_Guestbook $guestbook);
public function find($id);
public function fetchAll();
}
Those methods will interact with the Database Abstraction Layer and populate the domain objects with the data. Something along this lines:
public function find($id, Application_Model_Guestbook $guestbook)
{
$result = $this->getDbTable()->find($id);
if (0 == count($result)) {
return;
}
$row = $result->current();
$guestbook->setId($row->id)
->setEmail($row->email)
->setComment($row->comment)
->setCreated($row->created);
}
As you can see, the Data Mappers interacts with a Zend_Db_Table instance, which uses the Table Data Gateway Pattern. On the other hand, the $this->getDbTable->find() returns instances of the Zend_Db_Table_Row, which implements the Row Data Gateway Pattern (it's an object representing a database row).
Tip: The domain object itself, the guestbook
entity, was not created by the find() method on the DataMapper,
instead, the idea is that object creation is a task of factories
and you must inject the dependency in order to achieve the so called
Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) (part of the SOLID principles). But that's
another subject, out of the scope of the question. I suggest you
to access the following link http://youtu.be/RlfLCWKxHJ0
The mapping stuff begins here:
$guestbook->setId($row->id)
->setEmail($row->email)
->setComment($row->comment)
->setCreated($row->created);
So far, I think I have answered your main question, your structure will be as following:
application/models/DbTable/Guestbook.php
application/models/Guestbook.php
application/models/GuestbookMapper.php
So, as in the ZF Quick Start:
class GuestbookController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
public function indexAction()
{
$guestbook = new Application_Model_GuestbookMapper();
$this->view->entries = $guestbook->fetchAll();
}
}
Maybe you want to have a separated folder for the data mappers. Just change:
application/models/GuestbookMapper.php
to
application/models/DataMapper/GuestbookMapper.php
The class name will be
class Application_Model_DataMapper_GuestbookMapper
I've seen that you want to separate your domain model objects into modules. It's possible too, all you need is to follow the ZF's directory and namespace guidelines for modules.
Final tip: I've spent a lot of time coding my own data mappers for
finally realize that it's nightmare to maintain the object mapping when
your application grows with a lot of correlated entities. (i.e Account
objects that contain references to users objects, users that contain
roles, and so on) It's not so easy to write the mapping stuff at this
point. So I strongly recommend you, if you really want a true
object-relational mapper, to first study how legacy frameworks perform
such tasks and perhaps use it.
So, take some spare time with Doctrine 2, which is the
one of the best so far (IMO) using the DataMapper pattern.
That's it. You still can use your /dal directory for storing the DataMappers, just register the namespace, so that the auto loader can find it.
In my opinion you should have a gateway abstraction (not just Database access) per model. A DAO is not enough. What if you need to get the data from the cloud at some point? This is quickly coming a reality. If you abstract your gateway logic into something generic and then implement it using a database you can have the best of both worlds.
The implementation of a specific gateway interface could use a generic data mapper if you so chose. I work for a small company and have always just created my implementation using PDO. This lets me be close enough to the database to deal with any interesting bits of SQL I might need but am able to support a very abstracted interface.
I have not used the Zend Framework at all. I do not know if they have data-mapper tools that could help you implement the gateway interfaces.
I'm working on a large project at the moment and am just wondering which is best practice, to model entities and sets of entities seperately or in one class?
Currently I am implementing two classes for each entity (for example an 'author' and 'authors' class) where the plural class contains methods like 'fetch authors' (using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract for plural and Zend_Db_Table_Row_Abstract for singular).
However I realised that I've often seen methods like 'fetch/list' functions in a single entity's object, which seems quite neat in terms of the fact that I won't have to have as many files.
I know there are no hard-and-fast rules for data modelling but before I continue too far I'd be interested in learning what the general consensus on best-practice for this is (along with supporting arguments of course!).
Answers [opinions] gratefully received!
Rob Ganly
Personally, I prefer a model called Person to actually represent a single person and a model like PersonCollection to represent a collection of persons. In neither case, would I have methods for fetch/get on these objects. Rather, I would put those methods on a PersonRepository or a PersonMapper class.
That's really my biggest area of discomfort with ActiveRecord as a pattern for modeling. By having methods like find() and save(), it opens the door to methods like getPersonByName(), getPersonsWithMinimumAge(), etc. These methods are great, nothing wrong with them, but I think that semantically, they work better on a mapper or a repository class. Let the Model actually model, leave persistence and retrieval to mappers and repositories.
So, to more directly address your question, I see potentially three classes per "entity type":
Person - actually models a person
PersonCollection - extends some Abstract Collection class, each item of class Person
PersonMapper - persistence and retrieval of Person objects and PersonCollections
Controllers would use the mapper to persist and retrieve models and collections.
It's probably no surprise that I'm drawn to Doctrine2. The EntityManager there functions as a single point of contact for persistence and retrieval. I can then create repositories and services that use the EntityManager for custom functionality. And I can then layer on action helpers or factories or dependency injection containers to make it easy to get/create those repositories and services.
But I know that the standard ActiveRecord approach is quite common, well-understood, and very mainstream. You can get good results using it and can find many developers who immediately understand it and can work well with it.
As in most things, YMMV.
I was just curious as to what the rule of thumb was for models. Generally, I use them only for situations where I need to add/edit or update database entries for an object.
However, I'm building an app at the moment that has a "config" table which holds various data, such as last updated, which will control when certain features in the app should be displayed. In this instance, I will mostly need to retrieve data from the config table. Is it worth putting these config methods in model?
I'm interested to hear how more experienced coders approach the MVC methodology in CI - example pseudo methods (e.g., what methods relating to the same object you'd use in the model and the controller) would be most helpful.
"Is it worth putting these config methods in model?"
yes, absolutely, if only to prevent you from writing the same getters and setters in every controller that has deal with your table of configuration settings. Write your getters and setters once (ideally in a generalized way in MY_Model) and write your complex queries once in the model, then call them in as many libraries, controllers, or views as desired.
By employing models you are able to code to an interface and not an implementation.
Meaning there is a benefit of abstracting your model from your controller in that your controllers can be agnostic as to what ways your data is stored. You can decided to switch your data from database to xml to ini files as long as the models methods consistently offer up results in the format the controller expects. In short, when you switch your data source, you'd need only update your model's internal methods and not your controllers.
Lastly, it is permissible by the rules of MVC, I believe, to allow views to request data directly from models. To this end you may build CodeIgniter helpers for use in views that use the model to retrieve configuration settings, in much the same way that the native config_item() common function works.
You separate the M from the V&C for many of the same reasons that you separate your CSS from your HTML - abstraction, ease of reuse and lighter, more readable code.
Also note that with other MVC platforms, you wouldn't have a choice. Just because you can ignore the methodology (in CI) doesn't mean that you should do so.