We are coming to the end of our NHibernate learning experience. This is not the last chapter but the chapters after this are a bit disconnected from our journey so far. Previous chapters should have given you solid understanding of how to use NHibernate in a real-life application. We learned an important design pattern such as repository and other useful design principles. But we closed the chapter saying repository pattern has some downsides. In this chapter, we would dig deeper into that statement and try to understand what those downsides are and what can be done about them. In our attempt to address the downsides of repository, we would present two data access patterns, namely specification pattern and query object pattern. Specification pattern is a pattern adopted into data access layer from a general purpose pattern used for effectively filtering in-memory data. Query object pattern on the other hand, is a very specific pattern developed around querying data from a database. Query object pattern is often defined in a very abstract way and most people tend to come up with their own implementation. One that we would see in this chapter is something I have been using for some time.
Before we begin, let me reiterate – repository pattern is not bad or wrong choice in every situation. If you are building a small and simple application involving a handful of entities then repository pattern can serve you well. But if you are building complex domain logic with intricate database interaction then repository may not do justice to your code. The patterns presented in this chapter can be used in both simple and complex applications, and if you feel that repository is doing the job perfectly then there is no need to move away from it.
A lot has been written all over the Internet about what is wrong with repository pattern. A simple Google search would give you lot of interesting articles to read and ponder about. In this section, we would spend some time trying to understand problems introduced by repository pattern.
In the previous chapter, we implemented search employee functionality. We added a FindAll method on repository for that. From a clean code and maintenance point of view, this method has some issues that need to be addressed. FindAll takes name of the employee as input along with some other parameters required for performing the search. When we started putting together a repository, we said that Repository<T> is a common repository class that can be used for any entity. But now FindAll takes a parameter that is only available on Employee, thus locking the implementation of FindAll to the Employee entity only. In order to keep the repository still reusable by other entities, we would need to part ways from the common Repository<T> class and implement a more specific EmployeeRepository class with Employee specific querying methods. This fixes the immediate problem but introduces another one. The new EmployeeRepository breaks the contract offered by IRepository<T> as the FindAll method cannot be pushed on the IRepository<T> interface. We would need to add a new interface IEmployeeRepository. Do you notice where this is going? You would end up implementing lot of repository classes with complex inheritance relationships between them. While this may seem to work, I have experienced that there are better ways of solving this problem.
What happens if there is a need to query employees by a different criteria for a different business requirement? Say, we now need to fetch a single Employee instance by its employee number. Even if we ignore the above issue and be ready to add a repository class per entity, we would need to add a method that is specific to fetching the Employee instance matching the employee number. This adds another dimension to the code maintenance problem. Imagine how many such methods we would end up adding for a complex domain every time someone needs to query an entity using a new criteria. With several methods on repository contract that query same entity using different criteria makes the contract less clear and confusing for new developers. Such a pattern also makes it difficult to reuse code even if two methods are only slightly different from each other.
In order to make methods on repositories reusable in different situations, lot of developers tend to add a single method on repository that does not take any input and return an IQueryable<T> by calling ISession.Query<T> inside it, as shown next:
public IQueryable<T> FindAll()
{
return session.Query<T>();
}
IQueryable<T> returned by this method can then be used to construct any query that you want outside of repository. This is a classic case of leaky abstraction. Repository is supposed to abstract away any concerns around querying the database, but now what we are doing here is returning an IQueryable<T> to the consuming code and asking it to build the queries, thus leaking the abstraction that is supposed to be hidden into repository. IQueryable<T> returned by the preceding method holds an instance of ISession that would be used to ultimately interact with database. Since repository has no control over how and when this IQueryable would invoke database interaction, you might get in trouble. If you are using "session per request" kind of pattern then you are safeguarded against it but if you are not using that pattern for any reason then you need to watch out for errors due to closed or disposed session objects.
A god object is an object that does too many things. Sometimes, there is a single class in an application that does everything. Such an implementation is almost always bad as it majorly breaks the famous single responsibility principle (SRP) and reduces testability and maintainability of code. A lot can be written about SRP and god object anti-pattern but since it is not the primary topic of this book, I would leave the topic with underscoring the importance of staying away from god object anti-pattern. Avid readers can Google on the topic if they are interested.
Repositories by nature tend to become single point of database interaction. Any new database interaction goes through repository. Over time, repositories grow organically with large number of methods doing too many things. You may spot the anti-pattern and decide to break the repository into multiple small repositories but the original single repository would be tightly integrated with your code in so many places that splitting it would be a difficult job.
For a contained and trivial domain model, repository pattern can be a good choice. So do not abandon repositories entirely. It is around complex and changing domain that repositories start exhibiting the problems just discussed. You might still argue that repository is an unneeded abstraction and we can very well use NHibernate directly for a trivial domain model. But I would caution against any design that uses NHibernate directly from domain or domain services layer. No matter what design I use for data access, I would always adhere to "explicitly declare capabilities required" principle. The abstraction that offers required capability can be a repository interface or some other abstractions that we would learn in this chapter.