Abstracting away database specific id:s with the repository pattern?

Question

I'm learning DDD (domain driven design) and the repository pattern (in C#). I would like to be able to use the repository pattern to persist an entity and not care which database is actually used (Oracle, MySQL, MongoDB, RavenDB, etc.). I am, however, not sure how to handle the database specific id:s most (all?) databases uses. RavenDB, for example, requires that each entity it should store has an id property of type string. Other may require an id property of type int. Since this is handled differently by different databases, I cannot make the database id a part of the entity class. But it would have to exist at some point, at least when I store the actual entity. My question is what the best practise regarding this is?

The idea I am currently pursuing is to, for each database I want to support, implement database specific "value objects" for each business object type. These value object would then have the database specific id property and I would map between the two upon reads and writes. Does this seem like a good idea?

Answer 1

This is the classic case of leaking abstractions. You can't possibly abstract away the type of database under a repository interface unless you want to loose all the good things that come with each database. The requirements on ID type (string, Guid or whatever) are only the very top of huge iceberg with majority of its mass under the muddy waters.

Think about transaction handling, concurrency and other stuff. I understand your point about persistence ignorance. It's a good thing for sure to not depend on specific database technology in the domain model. But you also can't get rid of any dependency on any persistence technology.

It's relatively easy to make your domain model work well with any RDBMS. Most of them have standardized data types. Using ORM like NHibernate will help you a lot. It's much harder to achieve the same among NoSQL databases because they tend to differ a lot (which is very good actually).

So my advise would be to do some research on what is the set of possible persistence technologies you will have to deal with and then choose appropriate level of abstraction for the persistence subsystem.

If this won't work for you, think about Event Sourcing. The event store is one of the least demanding persistence technique. Using library such as Jonathan Oliver's EventStore will allow you to use virtually any storage technology, including file system.

Answer 2

I would go ahead and create an int Id field in the entity and then convert that to a string in the repository where the Id must be a string. I think the effort to abstract your persistence is very worth while and actually eases maintenance.

Answer 3

1. You are doing the right thing! Abstract yourself away from the constraints of the databases primary key types!

2. Don't try to translate types, just use a different field.

Specifically: Do not try to use the database's primary key, except in your data access logic. If you need a friendly ID for an object, just create an additional field, of whatever type you like, and require your database to store that. Only in your data access layer would you need to find & update the DB record(s) based on your object's friendly ID. Easy.

Then, your constraints on which databases can persist your objects have changed from 'must be able to have a primary key of type xxxx' to simple 'must be able to store type xxxx'. I think you'll then find you cna use any database in the world. Happy coding! DDD is the best!