We Keep Coding

DDD valueObject and database schema

To end 2014 year I got a simple question I think.
I would like to use "DDD" a bit more, and I'm currently trying to experiment various usecases to learn more about DDD.
My current usecase is the following :
we have a new database schema that is using a classic pattern in our company : modeling our nomenclature table as "id / code / label". I think it's a pretty classic case when using hibernate for example.
But in the OO world things get "complciated" for something this simple when using a API like JDBC or QueryDSL. I need to fetch an object by its code, retrieve its id or load the full object and then set it as a one to one relation in another object.
I wondering :
this kind of nomenclature can be an enum (or a class with String cosnatnts depending on the developer). in DDD terms, it is my ValueObject
the id  /code / label in the database is not i18n friendly (it's not a prerequisite) so I don't see its advantages. Except when the table can be updated dynamically and the usecase is "pick something in a combobox loaded from this table and build a relation with another object : but that's all because if you have business rules that must be applied you need to know the new code etc etc).
My questions are :
do you often use the id / ocde / label pattern in your database model.
how do your model your nomenclature data ? (country is perhaps not the best example :) but no matter what how do you model it ? without thinking much I would say database table for country; but for some status : "valid, waiting validation, rejected" ?
do you model your valueObjects using this pattern ?
or do you use lots of enum and only store their toString (or ordinal) in the database ?
In the Java OO objects world, I'm currently thinking that it is easier to manipulate enum that objects loaded from the database. I need to build repositories to load them for example. And it will be so simple to use them as enums. I'm searching some recomfort here or perhaps am I missing something so obvious ?
thanks
see you in 2015 !
Update 1 :
We can create a "Budget" and the first one is mark as Initial and the next ones are marked as "Corrective" (with a increment). For example, we can have a list of Budgets :"Initial Budget", "Corrective budget #1", "Corrective budget #2".
For this we have this database design : a Budget Table, a Version Budge with a foreign key between the two. the Version budget only contains an ID, a CODE and a LABEL.
Personnaly, I would like to remove this table. I don't see the advantages of this structure. And from the OO perspective, when I'm creating a budget I can query the databse to see if I need to create an Inital or Corrective budget (using a count query) then I can set the right enum to my new budget. But with the current design I need to query the database using the CODE that I want, select the ID and set the ID. So yes, it's really database oriented. Where is the DDD part ? a ValueObject is something that describe, quantify something. In my case seems good to me. A Version describe the current status of my Budget. I can comapre two versions just but checking their code, they don't have lifecycle (I don't want this one in particular).
How to you handle this type of usecases ?
It's only a simple example because I found that if you ask a database admin he would surely said that all seems good : using primary key, modeling relations, enforing constraints, using foreign key and avoid data duplication.
Thanks again Mike and Doctor for their comments.

I will hook in in your country example. In most cases, country will be a value object. There is nothing that will reference a country entity and that should know that if the values of the country changes it is still the same country. In fact, the country could be represented as an enum, and some nasty resource lookup functions that translate the Iso3 into a usefull display text. What we do is, we define it as a value object class with iso3, displayname and some other static information. Now out of this value object we define a kind of "power enum" (I still miss a standard term here). The class implementing the country value object gets a private constructor and static properties for each of its values (for each country) and explicit cast operators from and to int. Now you can treat it just like a normal enum of your programing language. The advantage to a normal enum beside having more property fields is, that it also can have methods (of course query methods, that don't change the state of the object). You can even use polymorphism (some countries with different behaviour than others). You could also load the content of the enums from a database table (without the statics then and a static lookupByIso3 method instead).
This you could make with some other "enum like" value objects, too. Imagine Currencies (it could have conversion methods that are implemented polymorphic). The handling of the daily exchange rates is a different topic though.
If the set of values is not fixed (for example another value object candidate like postal adress) then it is not a value object enum, but a standard value object that could be instantiated with the values you want.
To decide if you can live with something as a value object, you can use the following question: Do you want copy semantic, or reference semantic? If you ever change a property of the object, should all places where you used it update, too, or should they stay as they are? If the latter, than the "changed" object is a new and different value object. Another question would be, if you need to track changes to an object realizing that it remains the "same" despite of changing values. And if you have a value object, where you only want specific instances to exist, it is a kind of enum described above.
Does that somehow help you?

Displaying various objects' instance variables in a JTable and modifying them

I am designing an application that has two widgets:
-A list that contains arbitrary objects
-A table that displays specific properties of the currently selected object
The goal is to be able to pick an object from the list, look at the properties, and modify them as necessary. The list can hold objects of various types.
So say the list contains Vehicle objects and Person objects
public class Person
{
public String name;
public Integer age;
}
public class Vehicle
{
public String make;
public String model;
}
If I click on a Person object, the table will display the name and age, and I can assign new values to them. Similarly, if I click on a Vehicle object, it will display the make and model in the table and allow me to modify them.
I have considered writing a method like
public String[] getFields()
{
return new String[] {"name", "age"};
}
Which returns a list of strings that represent the instance variables I want to look at, and use some reflection methods to get/set them. I can define this getFields method in all of the classes so that I can use the table to handle arbitrary objects that might be thrown into the list.
But is there a way to design this so that I don't resort to reflection? The current approach seems like bad design.
On the other hand, I could create multiple TableModel objects, one for every possible class. The table would know what rows to display and how to access the object's instance variables. But then everytime a new class is added I would have to define a new table model, which also sounds like a weak design.

You have a class (Vehicle) and you know the names of some properties (make, model) that you want to be able to manipulate dynamically for an instance of this class through a JTable UI.
You have various different approaches to chose from.
A. Use the reflection API
This is what the reflection API is made for. If you want something so dynamic, there is nothing wrong with using reflection. The performance overhead will not be significant for this use case.
B. Use a library like beanutils that is based on the reflection API
This should be easier than directly using the reflection API, but it has the drawback that you need to include another dependency in your project.
C. Create dynamically at runtime the different TableModel classes.
You can do this using either the java compiler API or javassist. Based on information available at runtime, you are able to compile a new class for each different type of table model. If you follow this approach you must be aware that the creation of the class is a heavy task, so the first time you create a TableModel the application will take some time to respond.
What to chose?
Of course this is your decision. For the specific use case, the overhead added by reflection or beanutils is insignificant, so probably it is better to chose between A or B. In another use case where performance is more critical, then you could examine the C approach, without forgetting the class creation response time problem.
EDIT:
I just realized that in this specific use case there is another important functionality required. Convert from String to the appropriate data type of each property and vice cersa. Beanutils has perfect support for that, so it gets a plus here.

Best practice design pattern for defining "types" in a database with potential multi language requirement?

My question more specificity is this:
I want users on multiple front ends to see the "Type" of a database row. Let's say for ease that I have a person table and the types can be Student, Teacher, Parent etc.
The specific program would be java with hibernate, however I doubt that's important for the question, but let's say my data is modelled in to Entity beans and a Person "type" field is an enum that contains my 3 options, ideally I want my Person object to have a getType() method that my front end can use to display the type, and also I need a way for my front end to know the potential types.
With the enum method I have this functionality but what I don't have is the ability to easily add new types without re-compiling.
So next thought is that I put my types in to a config file and simply story them in the database as strings. my getType() method works, but now my front end has to load a config file to get the potential types AND now there's nothing to keep them in sync, I could remove a type from my config file and the type in the database would point to nothing. I don't like this either.
Final thought is that I create a PersonTypes database table, this table has a number for type_id and a string defining the type. This is OK, and if the foreign key is set up I can't delete types that I'm using, my front end will need to get sight of potential types, I guess the best way is to provide a service that will use the hibernate layer to do this.
The problem with this method is that my types are all in English in the database, and I want my application to support multiple languages (eventually) so I need some sort of properties file to store the labels for the types. so do I have a PersonType table the purely contains integers and then a properties file that describes the label per integer? That seems backwards?
Is there a common design pattern to achieve this kind of behaviour? Or can anyone suggest a good way to do this?
Regards,
Glen x

I would go with the last approach that you have described. Having the type information in separate table should be good enought and it will let you use all the benefits of SQL for managing additional constraints (types will be probably Unique and foreign keys checks will assure you that you won't introduce any misbehaviour while you delete some records).
When each type will have i18n value defined in property files, then you are safe. If the type is removed - this value will not be used. If you want, you can change properties files as runtime.
The last approach I can think of would be to store i18n strings along with type information in PersonType. This is acceptable for small amount of languages, altough might be concidered an antipattern. But it would allow you having such method:
public String getName(PersonType type, Locale loc) {
if (loc.equals(Locale.EN)) {
return type.getEnglishName();
} else if (loc.equals(Locale.DE)){
return type.getGermanName();
} else {
return type.getDefaultName();
}
}

Internationalizing dynamic values is always difficult. Your last method for storing the types is the right one.
If you want to be able to i18n them, you can use resource bundles as properties files in your app. This forces you to modify the properties files and redeploy and restart the app each time a new type is added. You can also fall back to the English string stored in database if the type is not found in the resource bundle.
Or you can implement a custom ResourceBundle class that fetches its keys and values from the database directly, and have an additional PersonTypeI18n table which contains the translations for all the locales you want to support.

You can use following practices:
Use singleton design pattern
Use cashing framework such as EhCashe for cashe type of person and reload when need.

Storing historical data with Java and Hibernate

This is a problem about historical data handling.
Suppose you have a class MyClass like the following one:
class MyClass {
String field1;
Integer field2;
Long field3;
getField1() {...}
setField1(String ...) {...}
...
}
Now, suppose I need to make MyClass able to store and retrieve old data, what's the best way to do this?
The requirements are to persist the classes through Hibernate, too. And to have at most two tables per "entity": only one table or one table for the "continuity" class (the one which represents the entity which evolves over the time) and another table for the historical data (as it's suggested here)
Please note that I have to be able to assign an arbitrary valid time to the values of the fields.
The class should have an interface like:
class MyClass {
// how to store the fields????
getField1At(Instant i) {...}
setField1At(Instant i, String ...) {...}
...
}
I'm currently using the JTemporal library, and it has a TemporalAttribute<T> class, which is like a map: you can do things like T myAttr.get(Instant i) to get the version of myAttr at Instant i. I know how to persist a TemporalAttribute in a table with Hibernate (it's simple: I persist the SortedMap used by the TemporalAttribute and you get a table with start and end valid time and the value of the attribute).
The real problem is that here we have multiple attributes.
I have a solution in mind but it's not clear, and I'd like to hear your ideas.

Your project reminds me of Hibernate Envers.
The Envers project aims to enable easy
auditing of persistent classes. All
that you have to do is annotate your
persistent class or some of its
properties, that you want to audit,
with #Audited. For each audited
entity, a table will be created, which
will hold the history of changes made
to the entity. You can then retrieve
and query historical data without much
effort.
choose what you want to audit (on a per attribute basis)
make your own Revision Entity (that stores informations such as revision number, author, timestamp...)
Using Hibernate Envers for this decouples entities and revision data (in database and in your code).

You can do something like this simply by adding a version number to your domain class. I did something like this where the Id was a composite between an db assigned number and the version number, but I would advise against that. Use a normal surrogate key, and if you really want, make the [id, version] tuple a natural key.
You can actually version entire object graphs that way, just by ensuring that the version number is the same for all elements on the graph. You can then easily go back to any previous version.
You should write a lot of service tests to insure the integrity of the code that manages the version.

Persisting data suited for enums

Most projects have some sort of data that are essentially static between releases and well-suited for use as an enum, like statuses, transaction types, error codes, etc. For example's sake, I'll just use a common status enum:
public enum Status {
ACTIVE(10, "Active");
EXPIRED(11, "Expired");
/* other statuses... */
/* constructors, getters, etc. */
}
I'd like to know what others do in terms of persistence regarding data like these. I see a few options, each of which have some obvious advantages and disadvantages:
Persist the possible statuses in a status table and keep all of the possible status domain objects cached for use throughout the application
Only use an enum and don't persist the list of available statuses, creating a data consistency holy war between me and my DBA
Persist the statuses and maintain an enum in the code, but don't tie them together, creating duplicated data
My preference is the second option, although my DBA claims that our end users might want to access the raw data to generate reports, and not persisting the statuses would lead to an incomplete data model (counter-argument: this could be solved with documentation).
Is there a convention that most people use here? What are peoples' experiences with each and are there other alternatives?
Edit:
After thinking about it for a while, my real persistence struggle comes with handling the id values that are tied to the statuses in the database. These values would be inserted as default data when installing the application. At this point they'd have ids that are usable as foreign keys in other tables. I feel like my code needs to know about these ids so that I can easily retrieve the status objects and assign them to other objects. What do I do about this? I could add another field, like "code", to look stuff up by, or just look up statuses by name, which is icky.

We store enum values using some explicit string or character value in the database. Then to go from database value back to enum we write a static method on the enum class to iterate and find the right one.
If you expect a lot of enum values, you could create a static mapping HashMap<String,MyEnum> to translate quickly.
Don't store the actual enum name (i.e. "ACTIVE" in your example) because that's easily refactored by developers.

I'm using a blend of the three approaches you have documented...
Use the database as the authoritative source for the Enum values. Store the values in a 'code' table of some sort. Each time you build, generate a class file for the Enum to be included in your project.
This way, if the enum changes value in the database, your code will be properly invalidated and you will receive appropriate compile errors from your Continuous Integration server. You have a strongly typed binding to your enumerated values in the database, and you don't have to worry about manually syncing the values between code and the data.

Joshua Bloch gives an excellent explanation of enums and how to use them in his book "Effective Java, Second Edition" (p.147)
There you can find all sorts of tricks how to define your enums, persist them and how to quickly map them between the database and your code (p.154).
During a talk at the Jazoon 2007, Bloch gave the following reasons to use an extra attribute to map enums to DB fields and back: An enum is a constant but code isn't. To make sure that a developer editing the source can't accidentally break the DB mapping by reordering the enums or renaming then, you should add a specific attribute (like "dbName") to the enum and use that to map it.
Enums have an intrinsic id (which is used in the switch() statement) but this id changes when you change the order of elements (for example by sorting them or by adding elements in the middle).
So the best solution is to add a toDB() and fromDB() method and an additional field. I suggest to use short, readable strings for this new field, so you can decode a database dump without having to look up the enums.

While I am not familiar with the idea of "attributes" in Java (and I don't know what language you're using), I've generally used the idea of a code table (or domain specific tables) and I've attributed my enum values with more specific data, such as human readable strings (for instance, if my enum value is NewStudent, I would attribute it with "New Student" as a display value). I then use Reflection to examine the data in the database and insert or update records in order to bring them in line with my code, using the actual enum value as the key ID.

What I used in several occations is to define the enum in the code and a storage representation in the persistence layer (DB, file, etc.) and then have conversion methods to map them to each other. These conversion methods need only be used when reading from or writing to the persistent store and the application can use the type safe enums everywhere. In the conversion methods I used switch statements to do the mapping. This allows also to throw an exception if a new or unknown state is to be converted (usually because either the app or the data is newer than the other and new or additional states had been declared).

If there's at least a minor chance that list of values will need to be updated than it's 1. Otherwise, it's 3.

Well we don't have a DBA to answer to, so our preference is for option 2).
We simply save the Enum value into the database, and when we are loading data out of the database and into our Domain Objects, we just cast the integer value to the enum type.
This avoids any of the synchronisation headaches with options 1) and 3). The list is defined once - in the code.
However, we have a policy that nobody else accesses the database directly; they must come through our web services to access any data. So this is why it works well for us.

In your database, the primary key of this "domain" table does't have to be a number. Just use a varchar pk and a description column (for the purposes your dba is concerned). If you need to guarantee the ordering of your values without relying on the alphabetical sor, just add a numeric column named "order or "sequence".
In your code, create a static class with constants whose name (camel-cased or not) maps to the description and value maps to the pk. If you need more than this, create a class with the necessary structure and comparison operators and use instances of it as the value of the constants.
If you do this too much, build a script to generate the instatiation / declaration code.