DDD and MVC: Difference between 'Model' and 'Entity' - php

I'm seriously confused about the concept of the 'Model' in MVC. Most frameworks that exist today put the Model between the Controller and the database, and the Model almost acts like a database abstraction layer. The concept of 'Fat Model Skinny Controller' is lost as the Controller starts doing more and more logic.
In DDD, there is also the concept of a Domain Entity, which has a unique identity to it. As I understand it, a user is a good example of an Entity (unique userid, for instance). The Entity has a life-cycle -- it's values can change throughout the course of the action -- and then it's saved or discarded.
The Entity I describe above is what I thought Model was supposed to be in MVC? How off-base am I?
To clutter things more, you throw in other patterns, such as the Repository pattern (maybe putting a Service in there). It's pretty clear how the Repository would interact with an Entity -- how does it with a Model?
Controllers can have multiple Models, which makes it seem like a Model is less a "database table" than it is a unique Entity.
UPDATE: In this post the Model is described as something with knowledge, and it can be singular or a collection of objects. So it's sound more like an Entity and a Model are more or less the same. The Model is an all encompassing term, where an Entity is more specific. A Value Object would be a Model as well. At least in terms of MVC. Maybe???
So, in very rough terms, which is better?
No "Model" really ...
class MyController {
public function index() {
$repo = new PostRepository();
$posts = $repo->findAllByDateRange('within 30 days');
foreach($posts as $post) {
echo $post->Author;
}
}
}
Or this, which has a Model as the DAO?
class MyController {
public function index() {
$model = new PostModel();
// maybe this returns a PostRepository?
$posts = $model->findAllByDateRange('within 30 days');
while($posts->getNext()) {
echo $posts->Post->Author;
}
}
}
Both those examples didn't even do what I was describing above. I'm clearly lost. Any input?

Entity
Entity means an object that is a single item that the business logic works with, more specifically those which have an identity of some sort.
Thus, many people refer to ORM-mapped objects as entities.
Some refer to as "entity" to a class an instance of which represents a single row in a database.
Some other people prefer to call only those of these classes as "entity" which also contain business rules, validation, and general behaviour, and they call the others as "data transfer objects".
Model
A Model is something that is not directly related to the UI (=View) and control flow (=Controller) of an application, but rather about the way how data access and the main data abstraction of the application works.
Basically, anything can be a model that fits the above.
MVC
You can use entities as your models in MVC. They mean two different things, but the same classes can be called both.
Examples
A Customer class is very much an entity (usually), and you also use it as part of data access in your app. It is both an entity and a model in this case.
A Repository class may be part of the Model, but it is clearly not an entity.
If there is a class that you use in the middle of your business logic layer but don't expose to the rest of the application, it may be an entity, but it is clearly not a Model from the perspective of the MVC app.
Your example
As for your code examples, I would prefer the first one.
A Model is a class that is used as a means of data abstaction of an application, not a class which has a name suffixed with "Model". Many people consider the latter bloatware.
You can pretty much consider your Repository class as part of your model, even if its name isn't suffixed with "Model".
I would add to that the fact that it is also easier to work with the first one, and for other people who later may have to understand your code, it is easier to understand.

All answers are a heavy mashup of different things and simply wrong.
A model in DDD is much like a model in the real world:
A simplification and abstraction of something.
No less and no more.
It has nothing to do with data nor objects or anything else.
It's simply the concept of a domain part. And in also every complex domain
there is always more than one model, e.g. Trading, Invoicing, Logistics.
An entity is not a "model with identity" but simply an object with identity.
A repository is not just a 1st level cache but a part of the domain too.
It is giving an illusion of in-memory objects and responsible for fetching
Aggregates (not entities!) from anywhere and saving them
i.e. maintaining the life cycle of objects.

The "model" in your application is the bit which holds your data. The "entity" in domain-driven design is, if I remember correctly, a model with an identity. That is to say, an entity is a model which usually corresponds directly to a "physical" element in a database or file. I believe DDD defines two types of models, one being the entity, the other being the value, which is just a model without and identity.
The Repository pattern is just a type of indexed collection of models/entities. So for instance if your code wants order #13, it will first ask the repository for it, and if it can't get it from there, it will go and fetch it from wherever. It's basically a level 1 cache if you will. There is no difference in how it acts with a model, and how it acts with an entity, but since the idea of a repository is to be able to fetch models using their IDs, in terms of DDD, only entities would be allowed into the repository.

A simple solution using service and collection:
<?php
class MyController {
public function index() {
$postService = ServiceContainer::get('Post');
$postCollection = $postService->findAllByDateRange('within 30 days');
while($postCollection->getNext()) {
echo $postCollection->current()->getAuthor();
}
}
}
EDIT:
The model(class) is the simple representation of the entity scheme. The model(object) is a single entity. The service operates on models and provides concrete data to the controllers. No controller has any model. The models stand alone.
On the other "side", mappers map the models into persistance layers (e.g: databases, 3rd party backends, etc).

while this is specifically about Ruby on Rails, the same principles and information still apply since the discussion is around MVC and DDD.
http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/06/no-domain-driven-design-in-rails.html

Related

Why repository should not return DTO

Read a lot of articles where people say that I should return Domain Model... But that will ruin the whole idea of my repository then.
I am using laravel Eloquent Models (that, if I am correct - Domain Models). I have repository, so in case I will decide to switch to Doctrine, I could just swap it all in a service provider. But if I will return an instance of Domain Model (in this case, Eloquent Model) that makes no sense. I need to return the same result from repository, and DTO seems just what I need...
Can someone explain me why am I wrong?
What is what
First off I'd like to give my interpretation of the terms you're using.
DTO (Data transfer object)
Typically a PHP class with public properties
Only responsible for carrying data
Does not does not validate the data
Does not know about any implementation specific things (e.g. which ORM it's tied to)
Usually used for passing data between parts of the application, without either part knowing about the implementation of the other
Domain model
Typically a PHP class with private properties
Should only contain valid data
Validates that any changes result in a valid state
Does not know about any implementation specific things (e.g. which ORM it's tied to)
Repository
Is only responsible for storing and retrieving data
Does know about it's implementation (e.g. which ORM it's tied to)
Is not responsible for returning valid data
What this means for your case
The answer really depends on how pure you'd like to think in terms of splitting responsibilities.
If you're talking to purists they'd say that Eloquent models are not DTOs and they are not domain models either. A repository will return an eloquent model, which will be mapped to a domain model. That domain model can then be modified or converted to a DTO, which can be used for reading data. In this case the responsibilities are separated at the cost of having more code.
If you're talking to pragmatists they'd say that Eloquent models are DTOs and domain models (and sometimes even repositories as well). As the eloquent models are responsible for storing data, retrieving data, modifying data and passing this data to other parts of the application.
In the end it's all about preference. You can go pure, you can go pragmatic, you can even pick something in between. It purely depends on how advanced a coder you are, how big the project is, how maintainable it should be, how quick changes have to be made etc.
Tdlr
A repository can return a DTO or a domain model depending on how pure you're thinking in terms of separating responsibilities.

Issue with base class that gets extended by both Models and Controllers

I've got a question regarding a conflict / conundrum I've run into with my application.
I want to make some common "stuff" available to all of my models and controllers, such as data from a cache, or session information, as well as the methods of my PDO wrapper.
Currently each individual feature controller and feature model extends a base controller and base model, which in turn extend a single object that does all of that common stuff.
A controller will get called by a router/dispatcher, and the controller will then call on a model to get some data. The problem with this is it means the main Object gets constructed twice: once when the feature controller is called, and again when the feature controller calls the feature model.
See the diagram below:
Obviously I'm doing something wrong, so I was wondering if there's some kind of best practice solution to this issue.
What I dont want is to have to pass the stuff the object loads, through the controller, to the model. That means any time I have to add a new common element to Object, I have to pass it through to the Model.
It's far simpler and easier for $this->cache or $this->db or $this->session to always be universally available in both controllers and models (as well as future helpers and misc classes).
How would I go about solving this issue?
Thanks :)
I think you are going in a wrong path about solving this issue.
If you are building an MVC application, you should separate concerns, thats why we use MVC. To separate Models, Controllers and Views.
You should define what do you need Model to do, what will Controller do, and use View only for presentation logic.
In proper MVC, Model is a layer that deals with business logic, database access, validation etc. So Model is not a one class. And you can use many models in one controller. And Controller is just... connection between Models and Views. Models should be fat, and Controllers should be light.
The way you are doing this is in my opinion wrong, since you can do the same stuff in both model and controller and that is not what MVC is for. Controller should not do any logic, thats why we use Models, controller only tells models what to do, and based on their reaction we tell other Models to do something else, or render View with success or error message or with posts from database etc.
The way you can do this is to once you have invoked appropriate controller, use it to get models you need. And again, model is composed of lots of classes, so your model folder can be fat. From Controller you should have only methods to access models so that models can do some actions, and report back to Controller what they did. And based on that returned value you do some more actions or call View to render.
So you should not have one object that can be extended by both models and controllers.
Your model folder can look like this:
Models
- Entities
- Forms
- Validators
- Services
...
And then you call any of them in your controller to do some action, and report back.
If you really need to have the same functionality in both controllers and models then this didnt answer your question, but I think its wrong to do it like you started.
Hope this helps you, interesting question Il try to help some more if I can.
I get a feeling, that the root of your problems is bad architecture.
The main thing you have to understand about MVC and MVC-inspired design patterns is that the pattern is made from two layers: presentation later and model layer. Those layers should not share common functionality. Controllers (as well as views and templates) are part of presentation layer.
When you have variables like $this->cache, $this->db or $this->session in the controller, it means that you have a severe leak of abstraction. These are storage structures, which should be hidden fairly deep in the model layer. If your controller is interaction with them directly, you do not have a controller.
Next problem is your base class (the one you call Object for some reason .. while objects kinda are instances of a class). It seems to be responsible for quite a lot, especially the instantiation of different abstraction for interaction with storage. If you controller needs a PDO instance (for some exceptionally bizarre reason), then it should be injected in the constructor. Same goes for cache and session management.
And then there is that small thing that model is not an object or a class. It is a layer. And just like presentation layer it is composed from different kinds of structures. Usually the recommendation is to have:
structures that deal with logical entities, which is usually what domain objects are for
one or more types of storage abstractions: data mapper, repository, unit of work, dao and/or some similar structures.
something, that controls the interaction between the above mentioned structures so that they do not leak in the presentation layer, commonly referred as services
And yes, you are correct assuming that using controller to pass along structures is a bad practice. It violates LoD. Instead you should be providing your controller with a factory, that instantiates your model layer structures and provides them with necessary dependencies .. this post might help.
my two cents on the subject .. for a more precise advice you would have to show some code

Where do I put a database query in MVC?

The last few days, I have extensively read books and web pages about OOP and MVC in PHP, so that I can become a better programmer. I've come upon a little problem in my understanding of MVC:
Where do I put a mysql_query?
Should I put it in the controller and call a method on a model that returns data based on the provided query? Or should I put it in the model itself? Are both of the options I'm providing total garbage?
Materials on the subject of MVC
You could have listed the books you were reading, because most (if not all) php books, which touch on MVC, are wrong.
If you want to become a better developer, i would recommend for you to start with article by Marting Fowler - GUI Architectures. Followed by book from same author - "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture". Then the next step would be for you to research SOLID principles and understand how to write code which follows Law of Demeter. This should cover the basics =]
Can I use MVC with PHP ?
Not really. At least not the classical MVC as it was defined for Smalltalk.
Instead in PHP you have 4 other patterns which aim for the same goal: MVC Model2, MVP, MVVM and HMVC. Again, I am too lazy to write about differences one more time, so I'll just link to an old comment of mine.
What is Model ?
First thing you must understand is that Model in MVC is not a class or an object. It is a layer which contains multitude of classes. Basically model layer is all of the layers combined (though, the second layer there should be called "Domain Object Layer", because it contains "Domain Model Objects"). If you care to read quick summary on what is contained in each part of Model layer, you can try reading this old comment (skip to "side note" section).
                            
The image is taken from Service Layer article on Fowler's site.
What does the Controllers do ?
Controller has one major responsibilities in MVC (I'm gonna talk about Model2 implementation here):
Execute commands on structures from model layer (services or domain objects), which change the state of said structures.
It usually have a secondary responsibility: to bind (or otherwise pass) structures from Model layer to the View, but it becomes a questionable practice, if you follow SRP
Where do I put SQL related code ?
The storage and retrieval of information is handled at the Data Source Layer, and is usually implemented as DataMapper (do not confuse with ORMs, which abuse that name).
Here is how a simplified use of it would look like:
$mapper = $this->mapperFactory->build(Model\Mappers\User::class);
$user = $this->entityFactory->build(Model\Entities\User::class);
$user->setId(42);
$mapper->fetch($user);
if ($user->isBanned() && $user->hasBannExpired()){
$user->setStatus(Model\Mappers\User::STATUS_ACTIVE);
}
$mapper->store($user);
As you see, at no point the Domain Object is even aware, that the information from it was stored. And neither it cases about where you put the data. It could be stored in MySQL or PostgreSQL or some noSQL database. Or maybe pushed to remote REST API. Or maybe the mapper was a mock for testing. All you would need to do, to replace the mapper, is provide this method with different factory.
Also, please see these related posts:
understanding MVC Views in PHP
testable Controllers with dependencies
how should services communicate between each other?
MVC for advanced PHP developers
Model and Entity Classes represents the data and the logic of an application, what many calls business logic. Usually, it’s responsible for:
Storing, deleting, updating the application data. Generally it includes the database operations, but implementing the same operations invoking external web services or APIs is not an unusual at all.
encapsulating the application logic. This is the layer that
should implement all the logic of the application
Here is the MVC Sequence Diagram which shows the flow during a http request:
In this case Model is the best place to implement the code realted to access database.
The model contains the domain objects or data structures that represent the application's state. [wikipedia]. So the model would be the place to make the database call.
In the 'classic' (lack of a better word atm) MVC pattern the view would get the current state from the model.
Don't make the mistake by saying that the model is for accessing the database. It's more than just accessing the database.
For one, don't use mysql_query() and family; they're being deprecated, so consider also learning about PDO and/or mysqli.
The model takes care of data handling; it provides an interface to the controller by which it retrieves and/or stores information. So this would be a primary place where database actions take place.
Update
To answer a question asked by the OP in the comments: "one generic model for the whole db or a model for each table/action?"
Models are meant to abstract away individual tables (although there are models that exclusively handle a single table); for instance, instead of asking for all articles and then query the usernames for the authors you would have one function like this:
function getArticles()
{
// query article table and join with user table to get username
}
How many models you will create largely depends on how big the project is and how inter-related the data is. If you can identify independent groups of data, it's likely that you'd create a model for each group; but this is no hard & fast rule.
Data manipulation can be part of the same model, unless you want a clear separation between read-only and write-only models (I wouldn't know of a situation that warrants this, but who knows).
To go even further, your model should not contain the database access code. This belongs to another layer outside the Model/View/Controller: this is called the persistence layer, which can be implemented using an Object-Relational Mapper such as the popular Doctrine 2 for PHP.
This way, you never touch any (my)SQL code. The persistence layer takes care of this for you.
I really advise you to have a look at a Doctrine tutorial, this is a really professional way to create your applications.
Instead of working with raw data loaded from the database, you create objects that hold your data, and the behavior associated with it.
For example, you might have a User class, such as:
class User
{
protected $id;
protected $name;
protected $privileges;
public function setName($name) { ... }
public function getName() { ... }
public function addPrivilege(Privilege $privilege) { ... }
public function getPrivileges() { ... }
}
You controller will only interact with objects:
class UserController
{
public function testAction()
{
// ...
$user = $em->getRepository('User')->find(123); // load User with id 123
$user->setName('John'); // work with your objects,
echo $user->getName(); // and don't worry about the db!
$em->flush(); // persist your changes
}
}
Behind the scenes, the ORM takes care of all the low-level work of issuing a SELECT query, instantiating your object, detecting modifications to your object, and issuing the necessary UPDATE statement!

Modelling in Zend framework

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.

Models in the Zend Framework

What are some of the ways you have implemented models in the Zend Framework?
I have seen the basic class User extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract and then putting calls to that in your controllers:
$foo = new User;
$foo->fetchAll()
but what about more sophisticated uses? The Quickstart section of the documentation offers such an example but I still feel like I'm not getting a "best use" example for models in Zend Framework. Any interesting implementations out there?
EDIT: I should clarify (in response to CMS's comment)... I know about doing more complicated selects. I was interested in overall approaches to the Model concept and concrete examples of how others have implemented them (basically, the stuff the manual leaves out and the stuff that basic how-to's gloss over)
I worked for Zend and did quite a bit of work on the Zend_Db_Table component.
Zend Framework doesn't give a lot of guidance on the concept of a "Model" with respect to the Domain Model pattern. There's no base class for a Model because the Model encapsulates some part of business logic specific to your application. I wrote a blog about this subject in more detail.
Persistence to a database should be an internal implementation detail of a Model. The Model typically uses one or more Table. It's a common but improper object-oriented design to consider a Model as an extension of a Table. In other words, we should say Model HAS-A Table -- not Model IS-A Table.
This is an example of IS-A:
class MyModel extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract
{
}
This is an example of HAS-A:
class MyModel // extends nothing
{
protected $some_table;
}
In a real domain model, you would use $some_table in the methods of MyModel.
You can also read Martin Fowler's take on the Domain Model design pattern, and his description of the Anemic Domain Model antipattern, which is how many developers unfortunately approach OO programming.
I personally subclass both Zend_Db_Table_Abstract and Zend_Db_Table_Row_Abstract. The main difference between my code and yours is that explicitly treat the subclass of Zend_Db_Table_Abstract as a "table" and Zend_Db_Table_Row_Abstract as "row". Very rarely do I see direct calls to select objects, SQL, or the built in ZF database methods in my controllers. I try to hide the logic of requesting specific records to calls for behind Zend_Db_Table_Abstract like so:
class Users extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract {
protected $_name = 'users';
protected $_rowClass = 'User'; // <== THIS IS REALLY HELPFUL
public function getById($id) {
// RETURNS ONE INSTANCE OF 'User'
}
public function getActiveUsers() {
// RETURNS MULTIPLE 'User' OBJECTS
}
}
class User extends Zend_Db_Table_Row_Abstract {
public function setPassword() {
// SET THE PASSWORD FOR A SINGLE ROW
}
}
/* CONTROLLER */
public function setPasswordAction() {
/* GET YOUR PARAMS */
$users = new Users();
$user = $users->getById($id);
$user->setPassword($password);
$user->save();
}
There are numerous ways to approach this. Don't think this is the only one, but I try to follow the intent of the ZF's design. (Here are more of my thoughts and links on the subject.) This approach does get a little class heavy, but I feel it keeps the controllers focused on handling input and coordinating with the view; leaving the model to do the application specific work.
Don't ever use Zend_Db_Table as your model. It just gets you into trouble. Either you write your own model classes which use Zend_Db_Table to talk to your database or you can read my blog post here for a hack that allows you to somewhat combine the "Model" class and Zend_Db_Table.
The main thing to not is that when you use Zend_Db_Table directly in your controllers you end up doing the same things in multiple places. If you have to make a change to some of that logic, you have to make a change in multiple places. Not good. My first professional project was done like this because I was the one in the company who had to learn how to use ZF and it's a total mess now.
I also tend to write helper functions into my classes for sophisticated fetches. Somthing like $table->doNameFetchAll() or $table->doOrderFetchAll().
I've been doing some research on Models for ZF and came across an interesting series of articles by Matthew Weier O'Phinney which are well worth checking out:
Using Zend_Form in your Models
Applying ACLs to Models
Model Infrastructure
It's not "production code" and a lot is left to the imagination, but it's a good read and has helped me quite a bit.
A model has nothing to do with the database. What if I am fetching data from an RSS feed or a SOAP service or reading files from the FS?
I put all these kinds of things in models. In that case, my model class might not extend anything. I'm about to write a model that uses methods of other models.
Skip ZF for the models part, there are much better solutions. The "M" in ZF's "MVC" is pretty much absent. Reading their docs they don't really mention models at all -- which is a good thing, it means you can use just about anything you want without writing lots of adapter code.
Take a look at Doctrine for models instead. It is quickly becoming the de-facto ORM for PHP.
You can do more complicated queries, check the Advanced usage section in the Zend_Db_Table manual page.
$select = $table->select();
$select->from($table,
array('COUNT(reported_by) as `count`', 'reported_by'))
->where('bug_status = ?', 'NEW')
->group('reported_by');
you can extend the Zend_Db_Table_Abstract class and add some useful methods to it. for example you can add a changePassword() method to your user class and manipulate it's data. or you can change the default __toString() method of your class, so you'll have a customized __toString() method that, let's say returns the whole contact information of the user (name, address, phone number) in a well formatted string. in your constructor you could populate your data into properties of your object. then use them like:
public function __toString() {
$data = $this->_name . ', ' . $this->_adderss . ', call: ' . $this->_phone;
return $data;
}
your model extends the Zend_Db_Table_Abstract just to ease the process of accessing its data, but the functionality you could have on that data is all up on your creativity and need.
I recommend you the book "php|architect's guide to programming with zend framework" by Cal Evans. the book is very informative and easy to read. chapters 4 and 6 are going to be useful for this matter.
A database entity is not the only kind of model component. As such, it doesn't really make sense to speak of models (in plural) - Your application has one model, which contains a multitude of components. Some of these components could be table gateways (And thus extend from Zend_Db), while others would not.
I recommend that you get hold of the book Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans, which does an excellent job of explaining how to construct an object model.
I use Propel 1.3 instead of Zend_Db_Table.
It's tricky to setup, but awesome.
It can examine your database and auto-generate all your models.
It actually generates 2 levels and 2 types of model.
Examples for 'user' table:
Level 1: BaseModel & BasePeer: these get overwritten every time you regenerate your ORM. i.e. BaseUser.php & BaseUserPeer.php
Level 2: StubModel & StubPeer: these don't get overwritten. They're the ones you customize. i.e. User.php & UserPeer.php
Type 1: Model - for basic CRUD operations, not queries i.e. User.php
Type 2: Peer -- for queries. These are static objects. i.e. UserPeer.php
So to create a user:
$derek = new User();
$derek->setFirstName('Derek');
$derek->save();
To find all dereks:
$c = new Criteria();
$c->add(UserPeer::FIRST_NAME, 'Derek');
$dereks = UserPeer::doSelect($c);
http://zfsite.andreinikolov.com/2008/08/zend_db_table-time-overhead-about-25-percents/
Bit of a catch 22, Zend_Table is nice in principle, but generates some performance overheads (without caching)...

Categories