Question

Currently we have implemented a repository pattern at work. All our repositories sit behind their own interfaces and are mapped via Ninject. Our project is quite large and there are a couple quirks with this pattern I’m trying to solve.

First, there are some controllers where we need upwards of 10 to 15 repositories all in the same controller. The constructor gets rather ugly when asking for so many repositories. The second quirk reveals itself after you call methods on multiple repositories. After doing work with multiple repositories we need to call the SaveChanges method, but which repository should we call it on? Every repository has one. All repositories have the same instance of the Entity Framework data context injected so picking any random repository to call save on will work. It just seems so messy.

I looked up the “Unit Of Work” pattern and came up with a solution that I think solves both problems, but I’m not 100% confident in this solution. I created a class called DataBucket.

// Slimmed down for readability
public class DataBucket
{
    private DataContext _dataContext;

    public IReportsRepository ReportRepository { get; set; }
    public IEmployeeRepository EmployeeRepository { get; set; }
    public IDashboardRepository DashboardRepository { get; set; }

    public DataBucket(DataContext dataContext,
        IReportsRepository reportsRepository,
        IEmployeeRepository employeeRepository,
        IDashboardRepository dashboardRepository)
    {
        _dataContext = dataContext;
        this.ReportRepository = reportsRepository;
        this.EmployeeRepository = employeeRepository;
        this.DashboardRepository = dashboardRepository;
    }

    public void SaveChanges()
    {
        _dataContext.SaveChanges();
    }
}

This appears to solve both issues. There is now only one SaveChanges method on the data bucket itself and you only inject one object, the data bucket. You then access all the repositories as properties. The data bucket would be a little messy looking since it would be accepting ALL (easily 50 or more) of our repositories in its constructor.

The process of adding a new repository would now include: creating the interface, creating the repository, mapping the interface and repository in Ninject, and adding a property to the data bucket and populating it.

I did think of an alternative to this that would eliminate a step from above.

public class DataBucket
{
    private DataContext _dataContext;

    public IReportsRepository ReportRepository { get; set; }
    public IEmployeeRepository EmployeeRepository { get; set; }
    public IDashboardRepository DashboardRepository { get; set; }

    public DataBucket(DataContext dataContext)
    {
        _dataContext = dataContext;
        this.ReportRepository = new ReportsRepository(dataContext);
        this.EmployeeRepository = new EmployeeRepository(dataContext);
        this.DashboardRepository = new DashboardRepository(dataContext);
    }

    public void SaveChanges()
    {
        _dataContext.SaveChanges();
    }
}

This one pretty much eliminates all the repository mappings in Ninject because they are all instantiated in the data bucket. So now the steps to adding a new repository include: Create interface, create repository, add property to data bucket and instantiate.

Can you see any flaws with this model? On the surface it seems much more convenient to consume our repositories in this way. Is this a problem that has been addressed before? If so, what is the most common and/or most efficient approach to this issue?

Answer 1

I think you are absolutely right to use the Unit of Work pattern in this case. Not only does this prevent you from needing a SaveChanges method on every repository, it provides you a nice way to handle transactions from within code rather than in your database itself. I included a Rollback method with my UOW so that if there was an exception I could undo any of the changes the operation had already made on my DataContext.

One thing you could do to prevent weird dependency issues would be to group related repositories on their own Unit of Work, rather than having one big DataBucket that holds every Repository you have (if that was your intent). Each UOW would only need to be accessible at the same level as the repositories it contained, and other repositories should probably not depend on other UOWs themselves (your repositories shouldn’t need to use other repositories).

If wanted to be an even bigger purist of the pattern, you could also structure your UOWs to represent just that, a single Unit of Work. You define them to represent a specific operation in your domain, and provide it with the repositories required to complete that operation. Individual repositories could exist on more than one UOW, if it made sense to be used by more than one operation in your domain.

For example, a PlaceCustomerOrderUnitOfWork may need a CustomerRepository, OrderRepository, BillingRepository, and a ShippingRepository

An CreateCustomerUnitOfWork may need just a CustomerRepository. Either way, you can easily pass that dependency around to its consumers, more fine grained interfaces for your UOW can help target your testing and reduce the effort to create a mock.