Question

suppose I have a domain classes:

public class Country
{
   string name;
   IList<Region> regions;
}

public class Region
{
   string name;
   IList<City> cities;
}

etc.

And I want to model this in a GUI in form of a tree.

public class Node<T>
{
  T domainObject;
  ObservableCollection<Node<T>> childNodes;
}

public class CountryNode : Node<Country>
{}

etc.

How can I automatically retrieve Region list changes for Country, City list changes for Region etc.?

One solution is to implement INotifyPropertyChanged on domain classes and change IList<> to ObservableCollection<>, but that feels kinda wrong because why should my domain model have resposibility to notify changes?

Another solution is to have that responsibility put upon the GUI/presentation layer, if some action led to adding a Region to a Country the presentation layer should add the new country to both the CountryNode.ChildNodes and the domain Country.Regions.

Any thoughts about this?

Answer 1

Rolling INotifyPropertyChanged into a solution is part of implementing eventing into your model. By nature, eventing itself is not out of line with the DDD mantra. In fact, it is one of the things that Evans has implied that has been missing from his earlier material. I don’t remember exactly where, but he does mention it in this video; What I’ve learned about DDD since the book

In and of itself, impelemnting an eventing model is actually legitimate in the domain, because of the fact it introduces a decoupling between the domain and the other code in your system. All you are doing is saying that your domain has the capability of notifying interested parties in the fact that something has changed. It is the responsibility of the subscriber, then, to act upon it. I think that where the confusion lies is that you are only using an INotifyPropertyChanged implementation to relay back to an event sink. That event sink will then notify any subscribers, via a registered callback, that “something” has happened.

However, with that being said, your situation is one of the “fringe” scenarios that eventing does not apply all that well to. You are looking to see if you need to repopulate a UI when the list itself changes. At work, the current solution that we have uses an ObservableCollection. While it does work, I am not a fan of it. On the flip side, publishing a fact that one or more items in the list have changed is also problematic. For example, how would you determine the entropy of the list to best determine that it has changed?

Because of this, I would actually consider this to not be a concern of the domain. I do not think that what you are describing would be a requirement of the domain owner(s), but rather an artifact of the application architecture. If you were to query the services in the domain after the point that the change is made, they would return correctly and the application would still be what is out of step. There is nothing actually wrong inside the world of the domain at this momeent in time.

So, there are a few ways that I could see this being done. The most inefficient way would be to continually poll for changes directly against the model. You could also consider having some sort of marker that indicates that the list is dirty, although not using the domain model to do so. Once again, not that clean of a solution. You can apply those principles outside of the domain, however, to come up with a working solution.

If you have some sort of a shared caching mechanism, i.e. a distributed cache, you could implement a JIT-caching/eviction approach where inserts and updates would invalidate the cache (i.e. evict the cached items) and a subsequent request would load them back in. Then, you could actually put a marker into the cache itself that would indicate something identifiable as to when that item(s) was/were rebuilt. For example, if you have a cache item that contains a list of IDs for region, you could store the DateTime that it was JIT-ed along with it. The application could then keep track of what JIT-ed version it has, and only reload when it sees that the version has changed. You still have to poll, but it eliminates putting that responsibility into the domain itself, and if you are just polling for a smaller bit of data, it is better than rebuilding the entire thing every time.

Also, before overarchitecting a full-blown solution. Address the concern with the domain owner. It may be perfectly acceptable to him/her/them that you simply have a “Refresh” button or menu item somewhere. It is about compromise, as well, and I am fairly sure that most domain owners would have a preference of core functionality over certain types of issues.