I'm reading Vaughn Vernon Book - Implementing Domain Driven Design. There is an example of a Project Management Application. There are aggregates like BacklogItem, Sprint, etc. If I have BacklogItemNotFoundException defined in Domain layer. Should my Rest adapter catch it and transform into NotFoundHttpResult? Or any other broken invariant exceptions like: EmailPatternBrokenException or TooManyCharactersForNameException or whatever should be handled in Rest adapter(ports&adapters architecture) and re-transformed into rest responses? If yes, it means that RestAdapter should have a reference to Domain layer? This is what bothers me...
The question is a contradiction. If it is a Domain Exception, it means that it is thrown by the domain.
Anyway, exceptions thrown by the domain should be handled by the application layer.
I have an exception handler decorator for the command bus, that catch any domain exception and translates it into an Application Exception.
This application exception is thrown to the adapters.
Adapters know about application exceptions, not domain exceptions.
UPDATE
My domain exception is an abstract base class from which the concrte domain exceptions inherit
public abstract class DomainException extends RuntimeException {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private ErrorMessage mainErrorMessage;
private List<ErrorMessage> detailErrorMessages;
protected DomainException ( List<ErrorMessage> aDetailMessages, Object... aMainMessageArgs ) {
this.mainErrorMessage = new ErrorMessage(this.getClass().getSimpleName(), aMainMessageArgs );
this.detailErrorMessages = ( (aDetailMessages==null) ? new ArrayList<ErrorMessage>() : aDetailMessages );
}
public ErrorMessage mainErrorMessage() {
return this.mainErrorMessage;
}
public List<ErrorMessage> detailErrorMessages() {
return this.detailErrorMessages;
}
}
ErrorMessage has a key and a list of args. The messages are in a property file where the key is the name of the concrete domain exception class.
Application exception is just one type, which holds the concrete text message.
public class ApplicationException extends Exception {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private String mainMessage;
private String[] detailMessages = new String[0];
public ApplicationException ( String aMainMessage, Throwable aCause, String... aDetailMessages ) {
super ("Main Message = "+aMainMessage+" - DetailMessages = "+Utils.toString(aDetailMessages), aCause );
this.mainMessage = aMainMessage;
this.detailMessages = ( (aDetailMessages==null) ? (new String[0]) : aDetailMessages );
}
public String mainMessage() {
return this.mainMessage;
}
public boolean hasDetailMessages() {
return (this.detailMessages.length > 0);
}
public String[] detailMessages() {
return this.detailMessages;
}
}
I have a decorator (wraps the execution of every command) for handling domain exceptions:
public class DomainExceptionHandlerDecorator extends Decorator {
private final DomainExceptionHandler domainExceptionHandler;
public DomainExceptionHandlerDecorator (DomainExceptionHandler domainExceptionHandler) {
this.domainExceptionHandler = domainExceptionHandler;
}
#Override
public <C extends Command> void decorateCommand(Mediator mediator, C command) throws ApplicationException {
try {
mediator.executeCommand(command);
} catch ( DomainException de ) {
this.domainExceptionHandler.handle (de);
}
}
}
And I have a domain exception handler that takes a domain exception, translates it into an app exception by reading properties file (TextMessageService does the job) and throw the app exception.
public class TranslatorDomainExceptionHandler implements DomainExceptionHandler {
private final TextMessageService configurationService;
public TranslatorDomainExceptionHandler ( TextMessageService aConfigurationService ) {
this.configurationService = aConfigurationService;
}
#Override
public void handle ( DomainException de ) throws ApplicationException {
ErrorMessage mainErrorMessage = de.mainErrorMessage();
List<ErrorMessage> detailErrorMessages = de.detailErrorMessages();
String mainMessage = this.configurationService.mensajeDeError ( mainErrorMessage );
String[] detailMessages = new String [ detailErrorMessages.size() ];
int i = 0;
for ( ErrorMessage aDetailErrorMessage : detailErrorMessages ) {
detailMessages[i] = this.configurationService.mensajeDeError ( aDetailErrorMessage );
i++;
}
throw new ApplicationException ( mainMessage, de, detailMessages);
}
}
The adapter (an UI for example) will catch the app exception and show its message to the user. But it doesn't know about domain exceptions.
I try to avoid domain exceptions as much as I can and prefer to make invalid states unreachable instead. The first reason is that exceptions are for exceptional, unexpected things, the second that I don't like my code to be cluttered with fine-grained try/catches for every little business-ish thing that could go wrong.
BacklogItemNotFoundException
To me this is typically your Repository or query service returning null or an empty list. No need for a domain exception.
EmailPatternBrokenException
TooManyCharactersForNameException
I let the validation feature of my web framework handle these. You could also check it in the Domain but it will rarely reach that point and you don't really need to handle that kind of error specifically.
As a result, the two typical scenarios are:
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Domain | Application | Presentation |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Expected failure case | Return Result.Fail | Clean error message |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Exception | - | Caught in catch-all clause > 500 error or other |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
I will add my 2 cents about error handling, not specifically related to DDD.
The exception are part of the contract you expose to the consumer. If you're expected to for example add an item to a shopping cart, the exception you may explicitly throw include itemNotAvailable, shoppingCartNotExisting, etc...
Technical exception on the other hand are not part of the contract, they may occurs but shouldn't be explicitly handled as no one can do anything about it, they must imply the operation interruption (and the rollback of the current unit of work).
A rest interface is a contract for an operation on a resource. When using rest over http the terms of the contract are related to the http protocol.
Typical operation described above (adding ie. post an item on a cart resource) would be translated to, for example, 404 for shoppingCartNotExisting and 409 for itemNotAvailable (conflict ie. the update on the resource is no more possible because some state has changed meantime).
So yes all "domain" exception (expected exceptions as part of the contract) should be explicitly mapped by the rest adapter, all unchecked ones should result in a 500 error.
TLDR; It is OK if the Application or Presentation layer has a dependency to the Domain layer, the other way is not recommended.
Idealy, there should not exist any dependency from one layer to another but that is impossible or the software would not be usable. Instead you should try to minimize the number and the direction of the dependencies. The general rule or best practice to a clean architecture is to keep the Domain layer agnostic of the infrastructure or the Application layer. The Domain objects (Aggregates, Value objects etc) should not care about a specific persistence or Rest or HTTP or MVC, just like the domain experts don't care about these things.
In real world, the Domain layer may be influenced by technology (like frameworks). For example we put annotations to mark some Domain objects as behaving in some specific way when persisted instead of using external XML or JSON files just because it is at hand, it is easier to maintain them. We need, however, to limit these influences to a minimum.
The application layer is business-specific domain itself. So your application layer should handle the domain exception based on what the application/business expects. The application(eg. client facing web application, mobile, an internal CRM app, or a backend-for-frontend API) is probably not the only client of the domain layer(eg. a rest api, a jar library). There might be certain domain exceptions that you don't want to expose to the end-user so the application has to wrap these exceptions specifically or handle exceptions globally.
Related
We use Apache Camel in Talend ESB Studio v6.4
In an ESB route, we consume JMS messages, process them then send them to an HTTP server. But that target server is down for maintainance every saturday from 6pm to 10pm.
How can we "pause" message consuming or message processing during that period ? I think quartz only works with file/ftp endpoints.
We could use a Processor component to check in Java if we are in the down period, but what to do after that ?
There are several ways to do this. One camel specific way to do it is through CamelControlBus. It takes in a routeId and performs an action (start/stop/resume etc) on it - Read more here to get an understanding Camel ControlBus
However, there is another approach that you can take. You can create a POJO bean that has 3 methods
shouldRouteStop() : to check the current time and decide if it should stop your route.
startRoute() : Starts a route if it is suspended
stopRoute() : Suspends a route if it is started
A simple implementation can be as follows:
public class ManagementBean {
public boolean shouldRouteStop() {
// Mocking the decision here
return new Random().nextBoolean();
}
public void startRoute(org.apache.camel.CamelContext ctx) throws Exception {
if (ctx.getRouteStatus("GenerateInvoices") == ServiceStatus.Suspended)
// replace the argument with your route Id
ctx.resumeRoute("GenerateInvoices");
}
public void stopRoute(org.apache.camel.CamelContext ctx) throws Exception {
if (ctx.getRouteStatus("GenerateInvoices") == ServiceStatus.Started)
// replace the argument with your route Id
ctx.suspendRoute("GenerateInvoices");
}
}
Make sure that the jms-route that you wish to control has a routeId and add this bean to your base/default CamelContext like this
main.bind("manageRouteBean", new ManagementBean());
Create another timer based route, that checks on each tick, if the route should be stopped or not and then suspends or resumes the route by routeId. This route can be implemented like below:
public class MonitoringRoute extends RouteBuilder {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
onException(Exception.class).log(exceptionMessage().toString());
from("timer:time?period=10000")
.choice()
.when().simple("${bean:manageRouteBean?method=shouldRouteStop}")
.log("Route Should Stop")
.bean(ManagementBean.class, "stopRoute(*)")
.otherwise()
.log("Route Should Start")
.bean(ManagementBean.class, "startRoute(*)")
.end();
}
}
Note that startRoute and stopRoute take the argument as *. This is camel way of automatically binding parameters based on type.
Finally, you can add this route to the main camel context like : main.addRouteBuilder(new MonitoringRoute());
For a complete implementation, have a look at this github repo
I'm currently writing on the business logic of an Java-application. I've splitted it into domain layer and service layer. The service layer provides interfaces which allow access on the data via data transfer objects.
The idea i've got is to make "typesafe" IDs. That could be simple described as that the method getId() doesn't return a long but instead an object of an special class which consists of the ID value and also a Class-field to determine the type which object is referred. The motivation befind this is, that I used the ID of the wrong type which lead to a difficult-to-detect error.
The ID-Class would look something like this:
public class ObjectId<T>
{
private Class<T> type;
prviate long id;
...
}
The class is then used in a DTO:
public class SomeDTO
{
public ObjectId<SomeDTO> getId(){...}
...
}
and also in the service:
public interface TheService
{
public SomeDTO getSome(ObjectId<SomeDTO> id);
...
}
I might be completly wrong, but beside some drawbacks like a more complex model it also offers the possibility to prevent such errors at the outsets.
Is it a good or a crazy idea?
This is a similar pattern to ones stated elsewhere and detailed in this blog post. I have this working using Windsor 2.5.4 pretty much as stated in the blogpost, but decided to switch to using Windsor 3. When I did this I noticed that the memory usage of the application go up over time - I guessed this would be that components were'nt being released.
There were a couple of modifications to the code in the blogpost, which may have caused the behaviour to differ.
Here is my AutoRelease interceptor (straight out of the blogpost, here for convenience and the lazy ;) )
[Transient]
public class AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
private static readonly MethodInfo Execute = typeof(IDocumentHandler).GetMethod("Process");
private readonly IKernel _kernel;
public AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor(IKernel kernel)
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (invocation.Method != Execute)
{
invocation.Proceed();
return;
}
try
{
invocation.Proceed();
}
finally
{
_kernel.ReleaseComponent(invocation.Proxy);
}
}
}
One of my deviations from the blog post is the selector that the typed factory uses:-
public class ProcessorSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override Func<IKernelInternal, IReleasePolicy, object> BuildFactoryComponent(MethodInfo method,
string componentName,
Type componentType,
IDictionary additionalArguments)
{
return new MyDocumentHandlerResolver(componentName,
componentType,
additionalArguments,
FallbackToResolveByTypeIfNameNotFound,
GetType()).Resolve;
}
protected override string GetComponentName(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
return null;
}
protected override Type GetComponentType(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
var message = arguments[0];
var handlerType = typeof(IDocumentHandler<>).MakeGenericType(message.GetType());
return handlerType;
}
}
What might be noticeable is that I do not use the default resolver. (This is where, perhaps, the problem lies...).
public class MyDocumentHandlerResolver : TypedFactoryComponentResolver
{
public override object Resolve(IKernelInternal kernel, IReleasePolicy scope)
{
return kernel.Resolve(componentType, additionalArguments, scope);
}
}
(I omitted the ctor for brevity- nothing special happens there, it just calls the base ctor).
The reason I did this was because the default resolver would try to resolve by name and not by Type- and fail. In this case, I know I only ever need to resolve by type, so I just overrode the Resolve method.
The final piece of the puzzle will be the installer.
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>()
.Register(
Component.For<AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor>(),
Component.For<ProcessorSelector>().ImplementedBy<ProcessorSelector>(),
Classes.FromAssemblyContaining<MessageHandler>()
.BasedOn(typeof(IDocumentHandler<>))
.WithService.Base()
.Configure(c => c.LifeStyle.Is(LifestyleType.Transient)),
Component.For<IDocumentHandlerFactory>()
.AsFactory(c => c.SelectedWith<ProcessorSelector>()));
Stepping through the code, the interceptor is called and the finally clause is executed (e.g. I didn't get the method name wrong). However, the component does not seem to be released (using the performance counter shows this. Each invocation of the factory's create method increases the counter by one).
So far, my workaround has been to add a void Release(IDocumentHandler handler) method to my factory interface, and then after it executes the handler.Process() method, it explicitly releases the handler instance, and this seems to do the job- the performance counter goes up, and as the processing is done, it goes down).
Here is the factory:
public interface IDocumentHandlerFactory
{
IDocumentHandler GetHandlerForDocument(IDocument document);
void Release(IDocumentHandler handler);
}
And here is how I use it:
IDocumentHandlerFactory handler = _documentHandlerFactory.GetHandlerForDocument(document);
handler.Process();
_documentHandlerFactory.Release(handler);
Doing the Release explicitly therefore negates the need for the interceptor, but my real question is why this behaviour differs between the releases?
Note to self:- RTFM. Or in fact, read the Breakingchanges.txt file.
Here's the change that affects this behaviour (emphasis is mine):-
change - IReleasePolicy interface has a new method: IReleasePolicy
CreateSubPolicy(); usage of sub-policies changes how typed factories
handle out-of-band-release of components (see description)
impact - medium fixability - easy
description - This was added as an attempt to enable more fine grained
lifetime scoping (mostly for per-typed-factory right now, but in the
future also say - per-window in client app). As a side-effect of that
(and change to release policy behavior described above) it is no
longer possible to release objects resolved via typed factories, using
container.Release. As the objects are now tracked only in the scope
of the factory they will be released only if a call to factory
releasing method is made, or when the factory itself is released.
fix - Method should return new object that exposes the same behavior
as the 'parent' usually it is just best to return object of the same
type (as the built-in release policies do).
I didn't find the fix suggestion terribly helpful in my instance, however my solution in the question is what you should actually do (release using the factory). I'll leave it up in case anyone else has this (non) issue.
I'm trying to build a layer over NServiceBus to make it simpler for other developers to use.
I'm trying to do without the config file and managed to get the publisher to work:
public class NServiceBusPublisher
{
private IBus _Bus { get; set; }
public void NServiceBusPublisher(string argInputQueue, string argErrorQueue)
{
Configure configure = NServiceBus.Configure.With().DefaultBuilder();
var transport = configure.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<MsmqTransport>(ComponentCallModelEnum.Singleton);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.InputQueue, argInputQueue);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.ErrorQueue, argErrorQueue);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.NumberOfWorkerThreads, 1);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.MaxRetries, 5);
_Bus =
configure
.XmlSerializer()
.MsmqTransport()
.IsTransactional(true)
.PurgeOnStartup(false)
.MsmqSubscriptionStorage()
.UnicastBus()
.ImpersonateSender(false)
.CreateBus()
.Start();
}
public void Publish(NServiceBus.IMessage argMessage)
{
_Bus.Publish(argMessage);
}
}
I also want to have an NServiceBus Subscriber and make it possible for developers to subscribe to any number of message types as long as the message inherits from NServiceBus.IMessage:
public class NServiceBusSubscriber
{
private IBus _Bus { get; set; }
public void NServiceBusSubscriber(string argInputQueue, string argOutputQueue, string argErrorQueue, string messagesAssembly)
{
Configure configure = NServiceBus.Configure.With().DefaultBuilder();
var transport = configure.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<MsmqTransport>(ComponentCallModelEnum.Singleton);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.InputQueue, argInputQueue);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.ErrorQueue, argErrorQueue);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.NumberOfWorkerThreads, 1);
transport.ConfigureProperty(t => t.MaxRetries, 5);
var ucb = configure.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<NServiceBus.Unicast.UnicastBus>(ComponentCallModelEnum.Singleton);
ucb.ConfigureProperty(u => u.MessageOwners, new Dictionary<string,string>()
{
{messagesAssembly, argOutputQueue}
});
_Bus =
configure
.XmlSerializer()
.MsmqTransport()
.IsTransactional(true)
.PurgeOnStartup(false)
.MsmqSubscriptionStorage()
.UnicastBus()
.ImpersonateSender(false)
.DoNotAutoSubscribe()
.CreateBus()
.Start();
}
public void Subscribe<T>() where T : NServiceBus.IMessage
{
_Bus.Subscribe<T>();
}
}
The problem is that I couldn't find any way to attach an event handler to a particular message type.
Could you please help me figure this out?
Its been a while since the question has been asked, so I am not sure if the problem has been solved, but here's one way you can do it using Bus.Subscribe (although as has been said by other respondents this is not the prescribed way of doing it NServiceBus)
Subscribe the to the message type using the subscribe overload
void Subscribe(Type messageType, Predicate<IMessage> condition);
Then you can handle the message in the delegate
private bool Handle(NServiceBus.IMessage nsbMsg)
{
//you get the message instance that you can handle
//return true
}
So, your code would then be
class MySubscriber
{
public IBus Bus {get; set;}
public void Subscribe()
{
Bus.Subscribe(typeof(MyMessage), Handle);
}
public void Handle(NServiceBus.IMessage nsbMsg)
{
var msg = nsbMsg as MyMessage;
//your code
return true;
}
}
However please note that by doing this you have to manage the lifetime of the handler yourself, which otherwise would have been managed for you by NServiceBus using the IOC framework of your choice.
You will also have to pass the reference to IBus explicitly which would be injected for you automatically if you were just implementing the IHandleMessage interface.
An architectural point here is that NSB is a full fledged 'ESB', its not just a messaging layer. Adding another layer over your ESB is IMHO an abstraction too many.
I think you are missing the concept behind NServiceBus.
Based on the code you show I get the impression that you envision services that publish messages and others that process those messages. In my experience most processes do both: they subscribe to events or process incoming commands and in result publish new events and send new commands.
In your setup you would need to have publisher and subscriber instances for each of these message types.
NServiceBus is built for the situation I describe. You configure and start 1 bus instance and that orchestrates the complete application.
If you want to make it easier for developers to use NServiceBus I would concentrate on the configuration part only. In our company I have created a ServicebusConfigurator class that configures NServiceBus according our company standards and extracted that in a framework and a simple extension method for the .NET Core generic host. The only code our developers need to write to create a Windows Service that hosts an NServiceBus endpoint is something like this:
internal static class Program
{
private static int Main(string[] args)
{
return (int)Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args) //.NET Core generic host
.WithNServiceBus() //configure NServiceBus according to our standards and start it.
.UseTopshelf<Worker>() // use Worker as the actual service doing the work.
.EnableNsbInstallersDuringInstall() // Execute any NServiceBus transport specific installation code during install of the service.
.Run(); // Run the thing.
}
}
Since you are not auto-subscribing the first thing you will need to do is subscribe to the message type via Bus.Subscribe(). Others could do this at the IWantToRunAtStartUp extension point(implement the interface in a class somewhere). From there, each subscriber will implement the IHandleMessages<T> interface. Implementing this interface wires you to a message where "T" is the message type.
When NSB starts up it will scan the local bin dir and find all your interface implementations and wire them up on your behalf internally. From there it will dispatch to the correct handler when a message of that type arrives.
NServiceBus automatically handles the subscription of messages. When you invoke Configure.With()....Start(); NServiceBus will scan to determine which assemblies implement IHandleMessages(SomeMessage) and it will send a subscription request to the publisher.
When you add "DoNotAutoSubscribe", you've got to manually get all messages being handled and do a Bus.Subscribe() for each of them.
Beyond that, NServiceBus will automatically handle the routing of an incoming message to the appropriate handler. In your subscriber code above, are you receiving an error message or are the messages disappearing from the queue?
Let's assume we have the following method in the business layer. What's the best practice to tell the UI layer that something went wrong and give also the error message? Should the method return an empty String when it was OK, otherwise the error message, or should it throw another exception in the catch code wrapping the caught exception? If we choose the second variant then the UI should have another try,catch which is too much try,catch maybe. Here is a pseudocode for the first variant.
public String updateSomething()
{
try
{
//Begin transaction here
dataLayer.do1();
dataLayer.do2();
dataLayer.doN();
//Commit transaction code here
}
catch(Exception exc)
{
//Rollback transaction code here
return exc.message;
}
return "";
}
Is this a good practice or should I throw another exception in the catch(then the method will be void)?
I like to return a standard contract to my UI layer from my business layer.
It looks like this:
public class ServiceOperationResult<T>
{
public bool Successful
{
get;
set;
}
public ServiceErrorType ErrorType
{
get;
set;
}
public string ErrorMessage
{
get;
set;
}
public T ReturnData
{
get;
set;
}
}
I use generics so that every service can define what it sends back, and the standard error flags tell the client app what type of error occurred (these are a meta-type, like "Internal error", "External party error", "Business rule validation error") and the app can then react in a standard fashion to these error types.
For instance, business errors are displayed in a red error label, while internal errors get redirected to an error page (in a web app) or close the form (in a windows app)
My pet hate is seeing a red label on a web site (where I expect to see validation errors) and seeing something like "The database server refused your connection" This is the risk that you run by only using a string to return error data.
The best way is wrap exception in some more general type and rethrow it. So updateSomething() must declare that it can throw some sort of Exception (for example: UpdateFailedException) and in catch block you should wrap exception.
public String updateSomething() {
try {
[...]
} catch ( SQLException e ) {
// rollback;
throw new UpdateFailedException(e);
}
}
But catching abstract Exception type is not a good idea. You should wrap only those things which semantic you know. For example: SQLException, DataAccessException (Spring DAO) etc.
If you wrap Exception you easily could wrap InterruptedException of NullPointerException. And this can broke your application.
It's a little unusual to return a String like this (but there's no real reason not too). More usual methods would be:
return a boolean value, and have some method of setting the error message, either by logging it, setting some global "last error" value, or having a pointer to an error construct passed in to your method which you update;
have a void method which throws an exception on failure, and handle it in the calling code (as you suggest)
I have see both of the above used extensively. It's hard to say which is "best". Try to be consistent with the idioms and conventions of the language you are working in and/or the existing code set/libraries you are working with if any.
Probably the best way is to have a custom exception classes specific to layers, once you catch the exception in a particular layer throw the custom exception to the calling layer, having this will have you the following advantage.
you will get the better modular approach to deal with the exception.
the maintenance of the code will be easy when your code complexity increases
you will be having more control on the exception scenarios
for example you catch a exception in the business layer and want to inform Presentation layer
public string DummyFunction
{
try
{
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw new businessException();
}
}