I mentioned in passing that I don’t like the Repository pattern anymore much, and gotten a lot of responses to that. This is the answering post, and yes, the title was chosen to get a rise out of you.
There are actually two separate issues that needs to be handled here. One of them is my issues with the actual pattern and the second is the pattern usage. There most commonly used definition for Repository is defined in Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture:
A system with a complex domain model often benefits from a layer, such as the one provided by Data Mapper, that isolates domain objects from details of the database access code. In such systems it can be worthwhile to build another layer of abstraction over the mapping layer where query construction code is concentrated. This becomes more important when there are a large number of domain classes or heavy querying. In these cases particularly, adding this layer helps minimize duplicate query logic.
A Repository mediates between the domain and data mapping layers, acting like an in-memory domain object collection. Client objects construct query specifications declaratively and submit them to Repository for satisfaction. Objects can be added to and removed from the Repository, as they can from a simple collection of objects, and the mapping code encapsulated by the Repository will carry out the appropriate operations behind the scenes. Conceptually, a Repository encapsulates the set of objects persisted in a data store and the operations performed over them, providing a more object-oriented view of the persistence layer. Repository also supports the objective of achieving a clean separation and one-way dependency between the domain and data mapping layers.
Note that while the actual pattern description defined in PoEAA and DDD are very nearly identical, the actual reasoning behind it is different, and the DDD repository is limited to aggregate roots only.
So, what is the problem with that?
The problem with this pattern is that it totally ignores the existence of mature persistence technologies, such as NHibernate. NHibernate already provides an illusion of in memory access, in fact, that is its sole reason of existing. Declarative queries, check. OO view on the persistence store, check. One way dependency between the domain and the data store, check.
So, what do I gain by using the repository pattern when I already have NHibernate (or similar, most OR/M have matching capabilities by now)?
Not much, really, expect as additional abstraction. More than that, the details of persistence storage are:
- Context sensitive
Trying to hide that behind a repository interface usually lead us to a repository that has method like:
It get worse when you have complex search criteria and complex fetch plan. Then you are stuck either creating a method per each combination that you use or generalizing that. Generalizing that only means that you now have an additional abstraction that usually map pretty closely to the persistent storage that you use.
From my perspective, that is additional code that doesn’t have to be written.
Wait, I can hear you say, but repositories encapsulate queries, and removing query logic duplication is one of the reasons for them in the first place.
Well, yes, but encapsulation of queries should be done in the repository. Queries are complex, and you want to encapsulate them in their own object. In most cases, I have something like this:
GetQuery takes an ISession an return ICriteria, which mean that my code gets the chance to set paging, ordering, fetching strategies, etc. That is not the responsibility of the query object, and trying to hide it only add additional abstraction that doesn’t actually give me anything.
I mentioned that I have two problems with the repository pattern, the second being the way it is being used.
Quite frankly, and here I fully share the blame, the Repository pattern is popular. A lot of people use it, mostly because of the DDD association. I am currently in the opinion that DDD should be approached with caution, since if you don’t actually need it (and have the prerequisites for it, such as business expert to work closely with or an app that can actually benefit from it), it is probably going to be more painful to try using DDD than without.
More than that, the way that most people use a Repository more closely follows the DAO pattern, not the Repository pattern. But Repository sounds more cool, so they call it that.
My current approach for data access now is:
- When using a database, use NHibernate’s ISession directly
- Encapsulate complex queries into query objects that construct an ICriteria query that I can get and manipulate further
- When using something other than a database, create a DAO for that, respecting the underlying storage implementation
- Don’t try to protect developers
Let us see how many call for my lynching we get now…