I have an MVC application that uses Entity Framework. I am using a repository, unit of work and unity as dependency injection.
The problem I have is that I have different authentication types, and each type I want a different class, so I decided to use the Strategy pattern
public interface IAuthStrategy
{
OperationResponse<AuthenticationMechanismDTO> GetAuthenticationMechanism(string userName);
}
public class AuthStrategy
{
readonly IAuthStrategy _authStrategy;
public AuthStrategy(IAuthStrategy authStrategy)
{
this._authStrategy = authStrategy;
}
public OperationResponse<AuthenticationMechanismDTO> GetAuthenticationMechanism(string userName)
{
return _authStrategy.GetAuthenticationMechanism(userName);
}
}
public class UserNamePasswordMechanism : IAuthStrategy
{
private IInstitutionRepository _institutionRepository;
public UserNamePasswordMechanism(IInstitutionRepository institutionRepository)
{
this._institutionRepository = institutionRepository;
}
public OperationResponse<AuthenticationMechanismDTO> GetAuthenticationMechanism(string userName)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
My problem is that I am injecting IAuthStrategy into the controller, and it gives me an error, because instead of implementing IAuthStrategy, I am passing that to AuthStrategy constructor, as you can see that in my code.
How can I fix this error?
Here is my controller
public class EmployeeController : ApiController
{
private IAuthStrategy _auth;
public EmployeeController(IAuthStrategy auth)
{
this._employeeBL = employeeBL;
this._auth = auth;
}}
}
Here is unity config where i am registering my types
public class UnityConfig
{
#region Unity Container
private static Lazy<IUnityContainer> container = new Lazy<IUnityContainer>(() =>
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
});
/// <summary>
/// Gets the configured Unity container.
/// </summary>
public static IUnityContainer GetConfiguredContainer()
{
return container.Value;
}
#endregion
/// <summary>Registers the type mappings with the Unity container.</summary>
/// <param name="container">The unity container to configure.</param>
/// <remarks>There is no need to register concrete types such as controllers or API controllers (unless you want to
/// change the defaults), as Unity allows resolving a concrete type even if it was not previously registered.</remarks>
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
// container.LoadConfiguration();
// TODO: Register your types here
container.RegisterType<IInstitutionRepository, InstitutionRepository>();
container.RegisterType<IAuthStrategy, AuthStrategy>();
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new UnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
Your unit registrations and classes look a little off.
From what I can gather, this is what you really want to do.
Setup a factory that will determine at runtime which IAuthStrategy should be used:
public interface IAuthStrategyFactory
{
IAuthStrategy GetAuthStrategy();
}
public class AuthStrategyFactory : IAuthStrategyFactory
{
readonly IAuthStrategy _authStrategy;
public AuthStrategy(...)
{
//determine the concrete implementation of IAuthStrategy that you need
//This might be injected as well by passing
//in an IAuthStrategy and registering the correct one via unity at startup.
_authStrategy = SomeCallToDetermineWhichOne();
}
public IAuthStrategy GetAuthStrategy()
{
return _authStrategy;
}
}
This is your existing AuthStrategy:
public interface IAuthStrategy
{
OperationResponse<AuthenticationMechanismDTO> GetAuthenticationMechanism(string userName);
}
public class UserNamePasswordMechanism : IAuthStrategy
{
private IInstitutionRepository _institutionRepository;
public UserNamePasswordMechanism(IInstitutionRepository institutionRepository)
{
this._institutionRepository = institutionRepository;
}
public OperationResponse<AuthenticationMechanismDTO> GetAuthenticationMechanism(string userName)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
Register the factory with unity:
container.RegisterType<IAuthStrategyFactory, AuthStrategyFactory>();
In your controller:
public class EmployeeController : ApiController
{
private IAuthStrategy _auth;
public EmployeeController(IAuthStrategyFactory authFactory)
{
this._employeeBL = employeeBL;
this._auth = authFactory.GetAuthStrategy();
}
}
Actually i missed implemented IAuthStrategyFactory on AuthStrategyFactory, once i implemented and register in unity container that worked.
Thanks
My DbContext implementation implements two interfaces.
I'm trying to follow best practices and instantiate one DbContext instance per HTTP request.
However, I have a controller action where I need to instantiate two classes, each of which takes different interface in constructor.
I am worried if in that scenario, for that specific action, two DbContext instances would be raised.
I've setup my ContainerBuilder like this:
builder.RegisterType<MyDbContext>()
.As<IWorkflowPersistenceStore>()
.As<IDocumentPersistenceStore>()
.InstancePerHttpRequest();
builder.RegisterType<WorkflowManager>().As<IWorkflowManager>().InstancePerHttpRequest();
builder.RegisterType<DocumentManager>().As<IDocumentManager>().InstancePerHttpRequest();
public class OperationController : Controller
{
private IWorkflowManager _workflowManager;
private IDocumentManager _documentManager;
public OperationController(IWorkflowManager workflowManager, IDocumentManager documentManager)
{
_workflowManager = workflowManager;
_documentManager = documentManager;
}
public ActionResult SaveWorkflowDocument(...)
{
// will my managers point to same DbContext?
_workflowManager.DoSomething(...);
_documentManager.DoSomethingElse(...);
return View();
}
}
public class WorkflowManager : IWorkflowManager
{
private IWorkflowPersistenceStore _store;
public WorkflowManager(IWorkflowPersistenceStore store)
{
_store = store;
}
}
public class DocumentManager : IDocumentManager
{
private IDocumentPersistenceStore _store;
public DocumentManager (IDocumentPersistenceStore store)
{
_store = store;
}
}
Is this good enough?
Do I have to add .SingleInstance()? I'm worried that it might create singleton for whole application.
I think you're ok with what you have. Test passes:
using Autofac;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace AutofacTest
{
[TestFixture]
public class ScopeTest
{
[Test]
public void Test()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<Component>()
.As<IServiceA>()
.As<IServiceB>()
.InstancePerLifetimeScope();
using (var container = builder.Build())
using (var scope = container.BeginLifetimeScope())
{
var a = scope.Resolve<IServiceA>();
var b = scope.Resolve<IServiceB>();
Assert.AreEqual(a, b);
}
}
}
public interface IServiceA { }
public interface IServiceB { }
public class Component : IServiceA, IServiceB { }
}
I'm using AutoMapper in an ASP.NET MVC application. I was told that I should move the AutoMapper.CreateMap elsewhere as they have a lot of overhead. I'm not too sure how to design my application to put these calls in just 1 place.
I have a web layer, service layer and a data layer. Each a project of its own. I use Ninject to DI everything. I'll utilize AutoMapper in both web and service layers.
So what are your setup for AutoMapper's CreateMap? Where do you put it? How do you call it?
Doesn't matter, as long as it's a static class. It's all about convention.
Our convention is that each "layer" (web, services, data) has a single file called AutoMapperXConfiguration.cs, with a single method called Configure(), where X is the layer.
The Configure() method then calls private methods for each area.
Here's an example of our web tier config:
public static class AutoMapperWebConfiguration
{
public static void Configure()
{
ConfigureUserMapping();
ConfigurePostMapping();
}
private static void ConfigureUserMapping()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<User,UserViewModel>();
}
// ... etc
}
We create a method for each "aggregate" (User, Post), so things are separated nicely.
Then your Global.asax:
AutoMapperWebConfiguration.Configure();
AutoMapperServicesConfiguration.Configure();
AutoMapperDomainConfiguration.Configure();
// etc
It's kind of like an "interface of words" - can't enforce it, but you expect it, so you can code (and refactor) if necessary.
EDIT:
Just thought I'd mention that I now use AutoMapper profiles, so the above example becomes:
public static class AutoMapperWebConfiguration
{
public static void Configure()
{
Mapper.Initialize(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddProfile(new UserProfile());
cfg.AddProfile(new PostProfile());
});
}
}
public class UserProfile : Profile
{
protected override void Configure()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<User,UserViewModel>();
}
}
Much cleaner/more robust.
You can really put it anywhere as long as your web project references the assembly that it is in. In your situation I would put it in the service layer as that will be accessible by the web layer and the service layer and later if you decide to do a console app or you are doing a unit test project the mapping configuration will be available from those projects as well.
In your Global.asax you will then call the method that sets all of your maps. See below:
File AutoMapperBootStrapper.cs
public static class AutoMapperBootStrapper
{
public static void BootStrap()
{
AutoMapper.CreateMap<Object1, Object2>();
// So on...
}
}
Global.asax on application start
just call
AutoMapperBootStrapper.BootStrap();
Now some people will argue against this method violates some SOLID principles, which they have valid arguments. Here they are for the reading.
Configuring Automapper in Bootstrapper violates Open-Closed Principle?
Update: The approach posted here is no more valid as SelfProfiler has been removed as of AutoMapper v2.
I would take a similar approach as Thoai. But I would use the built-in SelfProfiler<> class to handle the maps, then use the Mapper.SelfConfigure function to initialize.
Using this object as the source:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public DateTime BirthDate { get; set; }
public string GetFullName()
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", FirstName, LastName);
}
}
And these as the destination:
public class UserViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public class UserWithAgeViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
You can create these profiles:
public class UserViewModelProfile : SelfProfiler<User,UserViewModel>
{
protected override void DescribeConfiguration(IMappingExpression<User, UserViewModel> map)
{
//This maps by convention, so no configuration needed
}
}
public class UserWithAgeViewModelProfile : SelfProfiler<User, UserWithAgeViewModel>
{
protected override void DescribeConfiguration(IMappingExpression<User, UserWithAgeViewModel> map)
{
//This map needs a little configuration
map.ForMember(d => d.Age, o => o.MapFrom(s => DateTime.Now.Year - s.BirthDate.Year));
}
}
To initialize in your application, create this class
public class AutoMapperConfiguration
{
public static void Initialize()
{
Mapper.Initialize(x=>
{
x.SelfConfigure(typeof (UserViewModel).Assembly);
// add assemblies as necessary
});
}
}
Add this line to your global.asax.cs file: AutoMapperConfiguration.Initialize()
Now you can place your mapping classes where they make sense to you and not worry about one monolithic mapping class.
For those of you who adhere to the following:
using an ioc container
don't like to break open closed for this
don't like a monolithic config file
I did a combo between profiles and leveraging my ioc container:
IoC configuration:
public class Automapper : IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.Register(Classes.FromThisAssembly().BasedOn<Profile>().WithServiceBase());
container.Register(Component.For<IMappingEngine>().UsingFactoryMethod(k =>
{
Profile[] profiles = k.ResolveAll<Profile>();
Mapper.Initialize(cfg =>
{
foreach (var profile in profiles)
{
cfg.AddProfile(profile);
}
});
profiles.ForEach(k.ReleaseComponent);
return Mapper.Engine;
}));
}
}
Configuration example:
public class TagStatusViewModelMappings : Profile
{
protected override void Configure()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Service.Contracts.TagStatusViewModel, TagStatusViewModel>();
}
}
Usage example:
public class TagStatusController : ApiController
{
private readonly IFooService _service;
private readonly IMappingEngine _mapper;
public TagStatusController(IFooService service, IMappingEngine mapper)
{
_service = service;
_mapper = mapper;
}
[Route("")]
public HttpResponseMessage Get()
{
var response = _service.GetTagStatus();
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Accepted, _mapper.Map<List<ViewModels.TagStatusViewModel>>(response));
}
}
The trade-off is that you have to reference the Mapper by the IMappingEngine interface instead of the static Mapper, but that's a convention I can live with.
All of above solutions provide a static method to call (from app_start or any where) that it should call other methods to configure parts of mapping-configuration. But, if you have a modular application, that modules may plug in and out of application at any time, these solutions does not work. I suggest using WebActivator library that can register some methods to run on app_pre_start and app_post_start any where:
// in MyModule1.dll
public class InitMapInModule1 {
static void Init() {
Mapper.CreateMap<User, UserViewModel>();
// other stuffs
}
}
[assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(InitMapInModule1), "Init")]
// in MyModule2.dll
public class InitMapInModule2 {
static void Init() {
Mapper.CreateMap<Blog, BlogViewModel>();
// other stuffs
}
}
[assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(InitMapInModule2), "Init")]
// in MyModule3.dll
public class InitMapInModule3 {
static void Init() {
Mapper.CreateMap<Comment, CommentViewModel>();
// other stuffs
}
}
[assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(InitMapInModule2), "Init")]
// and in other libraries...
You can install WebActivator via NuGet.
In addition to the best answer, a good way is using Autofac IoC liberary to add some automation. With this you just define your profiles regardless of initiations.
public static class MapperConfig
{
internal static void Configure()
{
var myAssembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly();
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(myAssembly)
.Where(t => t.IsSubclassOf(typeof(Profile))).As<Profile>();
var container = builder.Build();
using (var scope = container.BeginLifetimeScope())
{
var profiles = container.Resolve<IEnumerable<Profile>>();
foreach (var profile in profiles)
{
Mapper.Initialize(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddProfile(profile);
});
}
}
}
}
and calling this line in Application_Start method:
MapperConfig.Configure();
The above code finds all Profile sub classes and initiate them automatically.
Putting all the mapping logic in 1 location is not a good practice for me. Because the mapping class will be extremely large and very hard to maintain.
I recommend put the mapping stuff together with the ViewModel class in the same cs file. You can easily navigate to the mapping definition you want following this convention. Moreover, while creating the mapping class, you can reference to the ViewModel properties faster since they are in the same file.
So your view model class will look like:
public class UserViewModel
{
public ObjectId Id { get; set; }
public string Firstname { get; set; }
public string Lastname { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
public class UserViewModelMapping : IBootStrapper // Whatever
{
public void Start()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<User, UserViewModel>();
}
}
From new version of AutoMapper using static method Mapper.Map() is deprecated. So you can add MapperConfiguration as static property to MvcApplication (Global.asax.cs) and use it to create instance of Mapper.
App_Start
public class MapperConfig
{
public static MapperConfiguration MapperConfiguration()
{
return new MapperConfiguration(_ =>
{
_.AddProfile(new FileProfile());
_.AddProfile(new ChartProfile());
});
}
}
Global.asax.cs
public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
internal static MapperConfiguration MapperConfiguration { get; private set; }
protected void Application_Start()
{
MapperConfiguration = MapperConfig.MapperConfiguration();
...
}
}
BaseController.cs
public class BaseController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Base/
private IMapper _mapper = null;
protected IMapper Mapper
{
get
{
if (_mapper == null) _mapper = MvcApplication.MapperConfiguration.CreateMapper();
return _mapper;
}
}
}
https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper/wiki/Migrating-from-static-API
For those who are (lost) using:
WebAPI 2
SimpleInjector 3.1
AutoMapper 4.2.1 (With Profiles)
Here's how I managed integrating AutoMapper in the "new way". Also,
a Huge thanks to this answer(and question)
1 - Created a folder in the WebAPI project called "ProfileMappers". In this folder I place all my profiles classes which creates my mappings:
public class EntityToViewModelProfile : Profile
{
protected override void Configure()
{
CreateMap<User, UserViewModel>();
}
public override string ProfileName
{
get
{
return this.GetType().Name;
}
}
}
2 - In my App_Start, I have a SimpleInjectorApiInitializer which configures my SimpleInjector container:
public static Container Initialize(HttpConfiguration httpConfig)
{
var container = new Container();
container.Options.DefaultScopedLifestyle = new WebApiRequestLifestyle();
//Register Installers
Register(container);
container.RegisterWebApiControllers(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration);
//Verify container
container.Verify();
//Set SimpleInjector as the Dependency Resolver for the API
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver =
new SimpleInjectorWebApiDependencyResolver(container);
httpConfig.DependencyResolver = new SimpleInjectorWebApiDependencyResolver(container);
return container;
}
private static void Register(Container container)
{
container.Register<ISingleton, Singleton>(Lifestyle.Singleton);
//Get all my Profiles from the assembly (in my case was the webapi)
var profiles = from t in typeof(SimpleInjectorApiInitializer).Assembly.GetTypes()
where typeof(Profile).IsAssignableFrom(t)
select (Profile)Activator.CreateInstance(t);
//add all profiles found to the MapperConfiguration
var config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
foreach (var profile in profiles)
{
cfg.AddProfile(profile);
}
});
//Register IMapper instance in the container.
container.Register<IMapper>(() => config.CreateMapper(container.GetInstance));
//If you need the config for LinqProjections, inject also the config
//container.RegisterSingleton<MapperConfiguration>(config);
}
3 - Startup.cs
//Just call the Initialize method on the SimpleInjector class above
var container = SimpleInjectorApiInitializer.Initialize(configuration);
4 - Then, in your controller just inject as usually a IMapper interface:
private readonly IMapper mapper;
public AccountController( IMapper mapper)
{
this.mapper = mapper;
}
//Using..
var userEntity = mapper.Map<UserViewModel, User>(entity);
For vb.net programmers using the new Version (5.x) of AutoMapper.
Global.asax.vb:
Public Class MvcApplication
Inherits System.Web.HttpApplication
Protected Sub Application_Start()
AutoMapperConfiguration.Configure()
End Sub
End Class
AutoMapperConfiguration:
Imports AutoMapper
Module AutoMapperConfiguration
Public MapperConfiguration As IMapper
Public Sub Configure()
Dim config = New MapperConfiguration(
Sub(cfg)
cfg.AddProfile(New UserProfile())
cfg.AddProfile(New PostProfile())
End Sub)
MapperConfiguration = config.CreateMapper()
End Sub
End Module
Profiles:
Public Class UserProfile
Inherits AutoMapper.Profile
Protected Overrides Sub Configure()
Me.CreateMap(Of User, UserViewModel)()
End Sub
End Class
Mapping:
Dim ViewUser = MapperConfiguration.Map(Of UserViewModel)(User)
I have successfully setup a simple mvc application that lists teams. I'm using Ninject to inject the appropriate repository depending on the controller (thanks to stack overflow ;). All looks good, except that the repository code looks exactly the same. And I know that's wrong. So my TeamRepository has two classes (for now).
public class SwimTeamRepository : ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>
{
private readonly Table<SwimTeam> _teamTable;
public SwimTeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<SwimTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<SwimTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
public class SoccerTeamRepository : ITeamRepository<SoccerTeam>
{
private readonly Table<SoccerTeam> _teamTable;
public SoccerTeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<SoccerTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<SoccerTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
They look exactly the same except for the Class and Table name, so clearly I need to re-factor this. What would be the best approach here? Singleton? Factory Method?
Thanks in advance!
You could use generics:
public interface ITeamRepository<T>
{
}
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam>
where TTeam : Team
{
private readonly Table<TTeam> _teamTable;
public TeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<TTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<TTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
public class Team
{
}
public class SwimTeam : Team
{
}
Then use it like so...
public void MyMethod()
{
var repository = new TeamRepository<SwimTeam>();
}
...and set up your IoC container w/ Ninject like so...
public class MyModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>>
.To<TeamRepository<SwimTeam>>();
}
}
public void MyMethod()
{
var repository = kernel.Get<ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>>();
}
If you want to get REAL generic and have a single repository for ALL of your mapped classes, you can do something like this:
public interface IRepository
{
IQueryable<T> Get<T>() where T : class, new();
}
public class Repository : IRepository, IDisposable
{
private DataContext _dataContext;
public Repository(string connectionString)
{
_dataContext = new DataContext(connectionString);
}
public IQueryable<T> Get<T>()
where T : class, new()
{
return _dataContext.GetTable<T>().AsQueryable();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_dataContext != null)
{
_dataContext.Dispose();
_dataContext = null;
}
}
}
...which you could call like so (after setting up your Ninject container)...
using (var repository = kernel.Get<IRepository>())
{
var swimTeam = repository.Get<SwimTeam>();
}
Since Ninject takes care of the life-cycle management of your objects, you don't HAVE to wrap the repository in a using statement. In fact, you don't want to use a using statement there at all if you plan to use the repository more than once within the scope of its lifetime. Ninject will automatically dispose of it when it's life-cycle ends.
Here's a good article by Rob Conery on using this kind of technique to reduce the friction of using different ORMs.
EDIT by keeg:
I Think
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam> where TTeam : Team {}
Should be
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam> where TTeam : class {}
Please correct if I'm wrong.
Is this what you want?
public class TeamRepository : ITeamRepository<T>
{
private readonly Table<T> _teamTable;
public TeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<T>());
}
public IQueryable<T> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
I have a method in a repository with a very complex business logic. I just read that there should be no business logic in a repository.
Removing the business logic from this method will require me to distribute the logic among two other repositories (because it involves two other entities).
Then my question is -what pattern should I use to implement this complex logic? It will need to consume these three repositories, but I cannot place it in a controller because I need to reuse it. Thank you for your help.
Complex business logic usually goes into a service layer. A service may depend on one or more repositories to perform CRUD operations on your models. Thus a single service operation representing a business operation may depend on multiple simple operations. Then you could reuse this service layer in your controllers and other applications.
Obviously your service shouldn't depend on specific repository implementations. In order to provide a weaker coupling between the service layer and the repositories you could use interfaces. Here's an example:
public interface IProductsRepository { }
public interface IOrdersRepository { }
...
public interface ISomeService
{
void SomeBusinessOperation();
}
public class SomeServiceImpl: ISomeService
{
private readonly IProductsRepository _productsRepository;
private readonly IOrdersRepository _ordersRepository;
public SomeServiceImpl(
IProductsRepository productsRepository,
IOrdersRepository ordersRepository
)
{
_productsRepository = productsRepository;
_ordersRepository = ordersRepository;
}
public void SomeBusinessOperation()
{
// TODO: use the repositories to implement the business operation
}
}
Now all that's left is configure your DI framework to inject this specific service into your controller.
public class FooController : Controller
{
private readonly ISomeService _service;
public FooController(ISomeService service)
{
_service = service;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
// TODO: Use the business operation here.
}
}
You can see how interfaces allow us to provide weak coupling between the layers. All the plumbing is performed by the DI framework and everything is transparent and easily unit testable.
I would use a domain driven design approach. A very good book on DDD is the following: .NET Domain-Driven Design with C#: Problem-Design-Solution. Look also for Fowlers Enterprise Patterns and Evans Domain Driven Design books. The basic idea is that a repository is basically infrastructure. All the domain logic goes into your model.
Example a repository method looks like this:
public void InsertAddresse(Company company)
{
foreach (Address address in company.Addresses)
{
this.InsertAddress(address, company.Key, (company.HeadquartersAddress == address));
}
}
On the other hand a model object looks like this:
public class Contact : Person, IAggregateRoot, IHasAddresses
{
private string jobTitle;
private string email;
private string phoneNumber;
private string mobilePhoneNumber;
private string faxNumber;
private string remarks;
private Company currentCompany;
private IList<Address> addresses;
public Contact()
: this(null)
{
}
public Contact(object key)
: this(key, null, null)
{
}
public Contact(object key, string firstName, string lastName)
: base(key, firstName, lastName)
{
this.jobTitle = string.Empty;
this.email = string.Empty;
this.phoneNumber = string.Empty;
this.mobilePhoneNumber = string.Empty;
this.faxNumber = string.Empty;
this.remarks = string.Empty;
this.currentCompany = null;
this.addresses = new List<Address>();
}
public string JobTitle
{
get { return this.jobTitle; }
set { this.jobTitle = value; }
}
public string Email
{
get { return this.email; }
set { this.email = value; }
}
public string PhoneNumber
{
get { return this.phoneNumber; }
set { this.phoneNumber = value; }
}
public string MobilePhoneNumber
{
get { return this.mobilePhoneNumber; }
set { this.mobilePhoneNumber = value; }
}
public string FaxNumber
{
get { return this.faxNumber; }
set { this.faxNumber = value; }
}
public string Remarks
{
get { return this.remarks; }
set { this.remarks = value; }
}
public Company CurrentCompany
{
get { return this.currentCompany; }
set { this.currentCompany = value; }
}
public IList<Address> Addresses
{
get { return this.addresses; }
}
protected override void Validate()
{
//some logic here
}
protected override BrokenRuleMessages GetBrokenRuleMessages()
{
return new ContactRuleMessages();
}
}
I think your super repository just break Single Responsibility Principle.
I would leave repository as simple as possible (KISS pattern ;), and would create other layer between controllers and repository, e.q. business layer.
To reuse and simplify the code have a look at Dependency Injection (implement IoC)
Actually I would suggest to have a look at SOLID principles.