Skip to main content

2 posts tagged with "design-pattern"

View All Tags

· 3 min read
Elbert Ribeiro

Design Patterns are solutions to common software development problems. They offer proven guidelines for designing code efficiently and in a reusable manner. Among these patterns, the Factory Pattern is widely used for creating objects in a flexible and decoupled way. In this article, we will explore how to apply the Factory Design Pattern in a Spring Boot project, providing a practical example to illustrate its usage.

The Factory Pattern

The Factory Pattern is a creational design pattern that focuses on object creation. It provides an interface for creating objects, allowing subclasses to decide which concrete class to instantiate. This promotes the principles of abstraction and decoupling.

There are two main variants of the Factory Pattern: the Factory Method and the Abstract Factory. However, we will focus on the Factory Method here, as it is the most commonly used and easiest to understand.

Implementing the Factory Method with Spring Boot

Let's consider a scenario where we have an order management system in a Spring Boot application. There are different types of orders, such as physical product orders, service orders, and subscription orders. Each type of order requires different creation logic.

To apply the Factory Method, we will start by creating an Order interface that defines the common operations for all types of orders:

public interface Order {
void process();
}

Now, we will create concrete implementations of this interface for each type of order:

public class PhysicalProductOrder implements Order {
@Override
public void process() {
// Logic to process a physical product order
}
}

public class ServiceOrder implements Order {
@Override
public void process() {
// Logic to process a service order
}
}

public class SubscriptionOrder implements Order {
@Override
public void process() {
// Logic to process a subscription order
}
}

Next, we will create the order factory that allows us to create concrete order instances:

public class OrderFactory {
public Order createOrder(OrderType type) {
return switch (type) {
case PHYSICAL_PRODUCT -> new PhysicalProductOrder();
case SERVICE -> new ServiceOrder();
case SUBSCRIPTION -> new SubscriptionOrder();
default -> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unknown order type");
};
}
}

The OrderType enumeration is used to identify the type of order we want to create.

Now, we can use the factory to create orders in our Spring Boot application:

public class OrderService {
private OrderFactory orderFactory;

public OrderService(OrderFactory orderFactory) {
this.orderFactory = orderFactory;
}

public void processOrder(OrderType type) {
Order order = orderFactory.createOrder(type);
order.process();
}
}

The OrderService class injects the order factory and uses the Factory Method to create and process orders based on the specified type.

Finally, we can configure Spring Boot to inject the order factory into our application:

@Configuration
public class AppConfig {
@Bean
public OrderFactory orderFactory() {
return new OrderFactory();
}
}

Now, whenever we need to create a new type of order, we can simply add a new implementation of the Order interface and update the order factory to accommodate the new type, keeping our code flexible and extensible.

Conclusion

The Factory Design Pattern is a valuable tool for creating objects in a flexible and decoupled manner in a Spring Boot project. It promotes the principles of abstraction and makes code more reusable and extensible. By following the principles of the Factory Method, we can create an order management system that can easily accommodate new types of orders without modifying existing code. This is just one example of how the Factory Design Pattern can be applied in software development, and its applications are broad and varied.

· 4 min read
Elbert Ribeiro

When developing a Spring Boot application, one of the most critical decisions to make is regarding the project's structure. Traditionally, many projects are organized into layers, such as DTO, Entity, and Service, to facilitate the separation of responsibilities. However, an alternative approach, based on domain-driven design (DDD), has gained prominence in recent years. In this article, we will explore the reasons why domain-based separation (e.g., Person, Car, Payment) is often a superior choice compared to layered separation.

1. Clarity and Focus on Business Logic

The domain-driven design approach places business logic at the heart of the project. Each package or module is associated with a specific domain concept, such as Person, Car, or Payment. This makes the code clearer as the components are closely related to business needs. As a result, developers can concentrate on the specific rules and functionalities of the domain, rather than getting lost in abstract layers.

2. Ease of Maintenance and Evolution

The domain-based structure simplifies the maintenance of the application. When a change is required in a business rule, you know exactly where to look and make the necessary modifications. In contrast, in a layered structure, changes often involve modifying several parts of the code, making it more error-prone and harder to maintain.

3. Enhanced Code Reusability

With domain-based separation, it is easier to reuse components in different parts of the application or even in future projects. For example, if you develop a Payment feature in one project, you can easily reuse it in another project involving Payments, without the need to recreate the entire service and data access layer.

4. Improved Testability

The domain-based structure allows the straightforward creation of domain-specific unit tests. This is crucial for ensuring code quality and application stability. Tests can be written more directly, covering the key domain functionalities.

5. Scalability and Flexibility

As the application grows, the domain-based structure naturally adapts. New functionalities can be added within the context of the existing domain, as long as the domain is well defined. This flexibility makes it easier to scale the application as new requirements emerge.

Downsides of Layered Organization

To provide a comprehensive overview, it's essential to consider the downsides of a layered organization:

  1. Complex Communication: A rigid separation into layers can lead to complex communication between the layers, resulting in intricate code to transfer data between different layers, such as DTOs.

  2. Risk of Anemic Domain: In projects with a layered organization, the so-called "Anemic Domain" can occur, where entities (Entities) frequently lack behavior (methods), resulting in an excessively burdened service layer.

  3. Increased Boilerplate Code: With distinct layers, it often requires writing more boilerplate code to convert data between DTOs and Entities, increasing code complexity.

  4. Difficulty Maintaining Cohesion: Maintaining class and component cohesion can be challenging in projects with layered organization, as responsibilities are distributed across different parts of the code.

  5. Reduced Clarity of Business Rules: In a layered structure, business logic is often diluted, making it difficult to understand specific business rules.

Bibliographic References

To further your understanding of the domain-driven design approach in Spring Boot projects and the disadvantages of a layered organization, you may consider reading the following books:

  1. "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software" by Eric Evans
  2. "Implementing Domain-Driven Design" by Vaughn Vernon
  3. "Patterns, Principles, and Practices of Domain-Driven Design" by Scott Millett and Nick Tune
  4. "Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship" by Robert C. Martin
  5. "Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code" by Martin Fowler

These references provide valuable insights into code organization and best practices for Spring Boot projects.

Conclusion

The domain-driven design approach offers numerous advantages over layered separation in Spring Boot projects, including greater clarity, ease of maintenance, code reusability, testability, and scalability. However, it's important to note that the choice between these approaches should be based on the specific project's needs and the development team's preferences. In some cases, a combination of both approaches may be the ideal solution, allowing you to leverage the best of each approach to effectively meet project requirements.