Maybe i miss something, but why passing a Repository into a method?
Why not use a container like Windsor or something else to access the
Repository?
class Computer
{
bool IsInstalled(InstallationPackage installationPackage)
{
IInstallationRepository instRepo =
ServiceManger.Resolve<IInstallationRepository>();
...
}
}
So you can still simply use computer.IsInstalled(installationPackage).
2010/7/31 Markus Zywitza <[email protected]>
> 2010/7/31 josh robb <[email protected]>:
> > There's nothing wrong with passing a LicenseRepository into a method
> > on the Software class. This allows easy testing and also stops
> > coupling your models to persistence.
> >
> > class Software{
> > bool IsValidLicenseCombination(LicensesRepository repo) {
> > var licenses = repo.FindValidLicenses(this,...);
> > ....
> > }
> > }
> >
> > This doesn't end up with an anemic model or a transaction script.
> > Although you still need to have the repo somewhere to pass in.
>
> This works well in theory. Looking back at my example of license
> management, I have not only Software and License, I also have
> LicenseInstance, Installation and Computer as aggregate roots among
> other entities.
> I also modeled a lot of relations as unidirectional many-to-one
> relations: License have thousands of LicenseInstances, but most of the
> time I only need counting used and unused ones, so there isn't any
> Instances collection in License. The situation between Computer and
> Installation is similar: Computers might have hundreds of
> installations, but the only thing I need to know most of the time is
> whether an installation was required and done on a computer.
> The method sketched above tests whether there are installation
> packages of that software that are already installed on the computer,
> it checks whether license instances are available and so on.
> In reality, the method ended like converting this:
> class Software
> {
> public bool CanBeLicensedFor(Computer computer, User user)
> {
> //...
> computer.IsInstalled(this.InstallationPackage);
> //...
> foreach(var license in this.RequiredLicenses)
> {
> var free = LicenseInstance.IsInstanceAvailableOf(license);
> var assigned = computer.IsLicenseInstanceAssigned(license);
> //...
> }
> }
> }
>
> into:
> class Software
> {
> public bool CanBeLicensedFor(Computer computer, User user,
> InstallationRepository instRepo,
> LicenseInstanceRepository licInstRepo)
> {
> //...
> computer.IsInstalled(this.InstallationPackage,
> Installationrepository instRepo);
> //...
> foreach(var license in this.RequiredLicenses)
> {
> var free = licInstRepo.IsInstanceAvailableOf(license);
> var assigned = computer.IsLicenseInstanceAssigned(license,
> licInstRepo);
> //...
> }
> }
> }
>
> I stopped the approach when I had four repositories in a single
> method. That was when I first thought of ActiveRecord should use the
> repositories for me, so I can use ActiveRecord with static methods. I
> would tell AR that I'm testing now and that all data access should be
> stubbed and only these and those methods should return some test
> objects.
>
> -Markus
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Castle Project Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<castle-project-users%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
