Skip to main content

How should we use Command/Query Segreration (part 1)

I think that all of us heard about command/query separation and command and query responsibility segregation. This is a design principal that says that a method should be a command or a query, but not both. For example a command is a method that modifies an object, but don’t return any value. The same think is for a query. A query is a method that returns a value/values but don’t modify the object itself. This would be the simple definition of this design principal.
What happens if we don’t respect this principal? You would say nothing. I can have a method that change the value of an item and return the object that was changed for example. We can have a lot of side effects that can be undetectable at beginning. How many times you had to look on an implementation of a method or to look in the documentation to know exactly that command is executed and what value is returned.
Basically, when we execute a command we should not return any kind of value. If we want to notify the caller that something happen, we should throw an exception.
Using this pattern we can define a software architecture where we have the queries and the commands separately. But in a small project, maybe we don’t need this. Implementing such architecture in a simple project can increase the complexity without having the need of such architecture. We don’t need an airplane electric circuit for an iron.
This principal is very beautiful and we can use it complex project, but when we have simple project I wouldn’t go on this solution, because we consume a lot of time defining all the separation and in a lot of cases we don’t need different classes for commands and queries (for simple projects). Simple is better and for projects with low complexity we should have this in mind.
You would say what happens if the project in time will be more complex. In that case we can change the architecture of it. Not all the project will become mammoths (only a very small part of them). If we have a good design and a healthy code than the redesign will be very simple.
The command/query separation can be used not only when we design our application, but also when we write the implementation. When we write a method that execute a query and return some values we should never change an item in that query or execute a command. If we draw a well-defined line between these two tips of methods we will have the command/query separation principal used. The code will be more easily understand and used.
There are a lot of implementations of the update command that return the object itself that was updated. What do you think about this kind of methods? Should this type of methods return the object that was updated?
public Foo Update(Foo unsavedFoo) { … }
public Foo Update(int fooId, string fooName, int fooAge) { … }
Next part

Comments

  1. OK.
    Let's take a simple example:
    You have a LIst page, that must support paging / filtering / sorting. Also the page should know the toal number of pages to display to the user.

    Please implement in CQS .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's easy - in the above example there are only queries, not commands that change the state of the system, I would say...

      Delete
    2. We have only queries. We don't have any kind of commands on the items.
      If we add to the request the CRUD operation on the list of item than maybe... we should think about CQS

      Delete
    3. I think/hope I was tired when I was posting the question....

      Delete
  2. Maybe when we create an object we should return the object that was created.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not really. However how do you go about creating an entity that hasn't yet an ID that is generated by the datastore? Like :

    int CreateUser(string firstName, string lastName) { ... }

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The response of all this questions will come tomorow with a post.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(

Azure AD and AWS Cognito side-by-side

In the last few weeks, I was involved in multiple opportunities on Microsoft Azure and Amazon, where we had to analyse AWS Cognito, Azure AD and other solutions that are available on the market. I decided to consolidate in one post all features and differences that I identified for both of them that we should need to take into account. Take into account that Azure AD is an identity and access management services well integrated with Microsoft stack. In comparison, AWS Cognito is just a user sign-up, sign-in and access control and nothing more. The focus is not on the main features, is more on small things that can make a difference when you want to decide where we want to store and manage our users.  This information might be useful in the future when we need to decide where we want to keep and manage our users.  Feature Azure AD (B2C, B2C) AWS Cognito Access token lifetime Default 1h – the value is configurable 1h – cannot be modified

What to do when you hit the throughput limits of Azure Storage (Blobs)

In this post we will talk about how we can detect when we hit a throughput limit of Azure Storage and what we can do in that moment. Context If we take a look on Scalability Targets of Azure Storage ( https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/storage-scalability-targets/ ) we will observe that the limits are prety high. But, based on our business logic we can end up at this limits. If you create a system that is hitted by a high number of device, you can hit easily the total number of requests rate that can be done on a Storage Account. This limits on Azure is 20.000 IOPS (entities or messages per second) where (and this is very important) the size of the request is 1KB. Normally, if you make a load tests where 20.000 clients will hit different blobs storages from the same Azure Storage Account, this limits can be reached. How we can detect this problem? From client, we can detect that this limits was reached based on the HTTP error code that is returned by HTTP