biznesowi
0
Jesteś zalogowany jako: Adam Kowalski
PL EN

ddd entity object

02.12.2020

Figure 1. Which one you choose is a matter of preference, and you can of course write your own, but I went with the implementation found in this blog post by Vladimir Khorikov: The only thing I changed is to use the new HashCode struct Combine method to create the hash which simplifies the original hash calculation. But as long as the Value Object remains unchanged, so too does its hash code. And make the PO entity … You can have simple objects in your Domain and you can have objects which have a business meaning. They are immutable. Requests, Are you a technical person? 13. He consults and teaches around Domain-Driven Design and reactive software development, helping teams and organizations realize the potential of business-driven and reactive systems as they transition from technology-driven legacy web implementation approaches. In the end our goal is to stay out of the way of Entity Framework and make it super simple to map state objects in and out of the database. The whole point of these examples is to stay as far out of Entity Framework’s way as possible. We must still support client requests for TenantId and ProductId from the Product: The ProductState object must support both DecodeProductId() and DecodeTenantId() methods. A Discussion on Domain Driven Design: Entities 15 April, 2007. I mean, Value Objects are supposed to be immutable anyway, so if anything about the Value Object changes, then a new Value Object ought to be created, and therefore, a new HashCode would need to be generated for the new instance. Figure 5. So if the collection of objects contained by the Value Object changes, then by definition, so to does the Value Object (because it would now reference a new immutable collection of objects), requiring a new Value Object, and thus a new hash code computation. There is really no good reason to create a Separated Interface. DDD Including DB Id in domain entity. 2. Being able to break apart the configuration for value objects would have been nice, but I was unable to find a way to do so. To start off, let’s recap the basic definition of DDD Aggregate. The problem that many have with designing Aggregates is that they don’t consider the true business constraints that require data to be transactionally consistent and instead design Aggregates in large clusters as shown in Figure 2. In Object Oriented Programming, we represent related attributes and methods as an Object.So for example, a Person could be an Object within our application. For example, I would not turn a DateOfBirth into a value object if all I am doing is calling simple methods on the DateTime struct. We create an interface that we want our client to see and we hide the implementation details inside the implementing class. In the end, do what makes sense and keep the code simple and maintainable. Two important building blocks when we talk about code are entities and value objects. I see a lot of examples given of a DateOfBirth property being its own class. There are many different implementations of this base class and the main difference is how the underlying equality comparison is implemented. If it has real meaning in the domain and helps to better translate the business by turning a DateOfBirth into a value object, then by all means go for it. For example, in Bullsfirst, a BrokerageAccount is an entity with accountId as its unique identifier. By convention Entity Framework will name the table ValueObject_PropertyName when running migrations and will look for this when mapping. I’d like to discuss the fundamental flaws that I see in it: Based on these two points alone I would personally choose to abandon this approach before going any further with it. The ProductBacklogItemState is an internal implementation details—just a data holder. An entity will always have a unique identifier. Thus, the client facing names should be Product, BacklogItem, and the like. Just allow Entity Framework to map entities and get back to what will make a difference in this competitive world: your market-distinguishing application. So, we have four prominent Aggregates in our Scrum project management application: Product, BacklogItem, Release, and Sprint. There is such a thing as over engineering the code and no amount of blog posts about turning everything into a value object is going to change that. Of course, there’s a bit more involved when you consider the overall architecture, but the foregoing points out the high-level composition guidance of Aggregate design. This is what will allow Entity Framework to perform the mapping. Lets discuss that next. Once computed and stored, they reference that value from that point forward, which is exactly what I was trying to achieve. If we go with the address as an entity approach, we’ve given identity to an object that shouldn’t have it and we’ve forced an unneeded extra join. For the first example I create a Separated Interface that is implemented by a concrete domain object. We are committed to balancing the right technology choices with your essential and unique business vision. 0. Domain Driven Design (DDD) is about mapping business domain concepts into software artifacts. Just to close the loop on this, I see that MS has some documentation about DDD and CQRS, and instead of using Lazy (which admittedly, now that I see what they’re doing is a bit overkill), they use a Nullable. Consider Product, which is backed by the ProductState object. This means that the person could change their name, email and password but it would still be the same person. Whether or not something is an Entity can depend largely on the context of the problem domain. Required fields are marked *. This is the basic distinction between an Entity and a Value Object. When using Domain-Driven Design the most important and overarching principle is the adhere to the Ubiquitous Language, and from the get-go this approach is driving us away from business terminology rather than toward it. For those who aren’t familiar, there is a concept in Domain Driven Design that distinguishes between objects with identity (entities) and those without (value objects). This article shows you how to build a DDD-styled entity class and then compares/contrasts the DDD version with the standard version. Contrary to some hardcore adherents of the primitive obsession code smell, there are times when turning a primitive into a value object is not necessarily a good idea. There are instances where this is true, but not when you aren’t doing something that warrants it. Figure 6. Threading was handled (naively, for the most part) by the container. Anyways, the point here is not that we have a mutable VO, but why I've considered the Orderline a VO instead of an Entity? An object fundamentally defined not by its attributes, but by a thread of continuity and identity. Unfortunately it looks like C# 8.0 will not be shipping with it. The following code example shows the simplest approach to validation in a domain entity by raising an exception. If you see that a concept in your domain model doesn’t have its own identity, choose to treat that concept as a Value Object. 11. If we need to update the address of an entity then we will need to create a new Address value object. The values of a value object must be immutable once the object is created. This is technically the kind of primary key that Entity Framework wants to work with. A person will have a name, email address and password as well as many other attributes. So treat PO as an aggregate of the PO entiity and the Line Item value objects. We let Entity Framework to do what it knows how to do by default to map entities to and from the database. For everyone who has read my book and/or Effective Aggregate Design, but have been left wondering how to implement Aggregates with Domain-Driven Design (DDD) on the .NET platform using C# and Entity Framework, this post is for you. Domain-driven design is predicated on the following goals: placing the project's primary focus on the core domain and domain logic; basing complex designs on a model Clients directly use only IProduct. If you’ve worked with Entity Framework Core you might be wondering how you can map to a complex type that isn’t an entity and has no DbSet in the context. And when the client requests just one ProductBacklogItem, we convert to one from a single ProductBacklogItemState with the matching identity. In DDD modeling, I try to key in on terms coming out of our Ubiquitous Language that exhibit a thread of identity. The Separated Interface named IProduct is implemented by a concrete domain object. In the references table at the end of this section you can see links to more advanced implementations based on the patterns we have discussed previously. An example may be an order and its line-items, these will be separate objects, but it's useful to treat the order (together with its line items) as a single aggregate. An entity is different from a Value Object primarily due to the fact that an Entity has an identity while a Value Object … The best reason we have for creating a Separated Interface is when there could be or are multiple implementations, and is just not going to happen in this Core Domain. We aggressively advance software developer skills utilizing DDD and the VLINGO/PLATFORM to deliver excellent software solutions. Your “helper” for adding days or calculating a specific date will be unlikely to be simpler than me just calling the built in methods. Entities. Finally, DDD doesn't really have anything to say about your key structure, other than it should uniquely identify each entity. Business and development teams should communicate with each other using DDD tactical patterns like Domain Event, Domain Service, Entity, Value Object. I’ll have to take a look at that MS article. Here are the base types for all Identity types of Value Objects: So, the ProductState object stands on its own when it comes to persisting the state of the Product. By keeping state objects separate from the domain-driven implementation objects, it enables very simple mappings. I consider entities to be a common form of reference object, but use the term "entity" only within domain models while the reference/value object dichotomy is useful for all code. Thi… I wrote about entities and value objects some time ago. Check it out if you liked this post. Therefore, when the object is constructed, you must provide the required values, but you must not allow them to change during the object's lifetime. In this case, ProductOwnerId would be saved to the same database row as the ProductState entity. Not only that but you are adding in extra code and creating a custom API that any new developer is going to have to learn. If C# delivers the new Record struct someday, we may be able to forego the manually implemented base class entirely. Figure 1 illustrates two such consistency boundaries, with two different Aggregates. One approach uses a Separated Interface with an implementation class, and the other uses a domain object backed by a state object. IProduct and IBacklogItem are not in our Ubiquitous Language, but Product and BacklogItem are. The ProductBacklogItemState object must only support a few simple conversion methods: Should the client ask repeatedly for a collection of ProductBacklogItem instances the Product could cache the collection after the first time it is generated. Domain-Driven Design: Monoliths to Microservices, Domain-Driven Design for Modern Architectures. Whether you stick with the default naming or override it is more a matter of preference than best practice. Here are some thoughts on distinctions between aggregates and entities in domain-driven design (DDD), in response to some good questions Harry Brumleve asked me via email. requestedHashCode; In the GetHashCode method, they look to see if requestedHashCode.HasValue is false, and if so, then compute and store the hashcode. And then I learned that one more task — beyond everything else on my plate — must be accomplished. The ReferenceOwnershipBuilder that Entity Framework Core uses to map value objects has constructors that are for internal use only. The parts are: Setting the scene – what DDD says about object design and persistence; A look at what a DDD-styled entity class looks like Comparing creating a new instance of a DDD-styled entity class Inline value objects fields in the entity table, a simple design that also supports refactoring of value objects from an entity. The domain object that models the Aggregate behavior is backed by a state object that holds the model’s state. As he does so, he puts strong emphasis on embracing simplicity whenever possible. The topic described in this article is a part of my Domain-Driven Design in Practice Pluralsight course. I am often asked that question. To do so we are going to use just a few basic mapping techniques. In real life DDD it's the opposite. Vaughn is the author of three books: Implementing Domain-Driven Design, Reactive Messaging Patterns with the Actor Model, and Domain-Driven Design Distilled, all published by Addison-Wesley. It was a Sunday. A poorly designed Aggregate that is not conceived on according to true business consistency constraints. So, thanks for your words of advice, but I have done everything below with precise intent.]. All that said, if you really want to use composites and you can get your team to agree, then by all means, make the choice and go for it. What I am recommending is that you allow Entity Framework to take control of doing what it does best and we just stay out of its way. go to the trouble of modeling your domain as a set of classes but those classes contain no business logic They form the basis for which we describe the business and interact with it, and often times, entities are the only objects developers create when modeling the system. When we model the domain we typically think in terms of entities which are then persisted and modified over time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Side Note: If you search the internet you’ll see a lot of code where the domain entity has a single State property containing the memento object, and all methods update that memento object. focus on the core domain and domain logic. By keeping state objects separate from the domain-driven implementation objects, it enables very simple mappings. If we go with the primitive approach, we lose the ability to reuse an address object with its properties and behaviors. An Entity has a meaningful identity, whereas a Value Object does not. The only way to create or update entity data is constructors (ctors), factories or methods in the entity class. Copyright © 2020 Kalele Inc. All Rights Reserved. When two or more Aggregates have at least some dependencies on updates, use eventual consistency. For example: int? Therefore, internally the ProductKey must be set to a composite of TenantId as a string and ProductId as a string: I think you get the idea. Going with the value object approach will allow us to both encapsulate behavior and properties within an object as well as prevent the address from having identity. I consider myself a refugee from the old JEE architectures. We define a domain concept as an Entity when we care about it’s individuality, when it is important to distinguish it from all other objects in the system. Immutability is an important requirement. Let’s just pause there and move on to the second and related issue. Entity Framework has a certain way of mapping entities into the database, and that’s just how it works. A better example would demonstrate the need to ensure that either the internal state did not change, or that all the mutations for a method occurred. After all, your Core Domain is where you want to put your creative energies, not in becoming an expert in Entity Framework. Only an object representing a Domain concept can be classified as an Entity (it has an id) or a VO (it encapsulates a simple or composite value). PHP Domain-Driven Design value objects entity identity Doctrine ORM. In this post, I’d like to talk about differences between Entity vs Value Object in more detail. It may not be entirely clear when a value object should be used and why. My last post was intended to help better explain how the ubiquitous language forms the back bone of Domain Driven Design (DDD). Therefore in my practice, Onion architecture is the best among others to be coupled with DDD design and to integrate DDD principles in the real-life projects. Everyone knows the built in types and methods that ship with .NET, only you know all of your amazing helper methods. Nope, just the opposite in fact. Identity and lookup. A DDD aggregate is a cluster of domain objects that can be treated as a single unit. This is not something you would typically do. These follow the rules of Aggregate, including designing small Aggregates. Checking equality between value objects now becomes a simple != or == due to the absence of a unique Id. An object is not a VO because it's immutable and it's not an Entity just because you have a property Id (similar a class named Repository is not really a repository). Why? Still, we can get quite a bit of mileage out of Entity Framework in the midst of DDD and be quite happy with the way it all works out. Context Map: The compiler can help you spot mistakes. Note that this divide is not really a layering, it’s just procedures working with pure data structures. The second approach uses a domain object backed by state objects. I am not going to recommend that you need to become an Entity Framework guru. Within our database this person is represented by an id. However, the ProductState also holds another collection of entities; that is, the List of ProductBacklogItemState: This is all well and good because we keep the database mappings really simple. Using an example from my book, a set of well-designed Aggregates are shown in Figure 3. https://github.com/SeanLeitzinger/Entity-Framework-Core-Examples, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-9#record-types, The Repository Pattern is Dead If You Use Entity Framework. Most of the writings and articles on this topic have been based on Eric Evans' book "Domain Driven Design", covering the domain modeling and design aspects mainly from a conceptual and design stand-point. First and foremost the Aggregate pattern is about transactional consistency. The state object has a simple string-based identity: The ProductKey is actually encoded with two properties, the TenantId as a string and the ProductId as a string, with the two separated by a ‘:’ character. Yet, how do we get a ProductBacklogItemState object, or the entire List collection for that matter, into a format that we can allow clients to consume? Now with this brief refresher on the basics of Aggregate design, let’s see how we might map the Product to a database using Entity Framework. You’ll see in my code up there I purposely left it as a primitive. If the primitive property is acting primarily as a data transfer object, don’t turn it into a value object. There are several draw backs to both approaches. At the end of a committed database transaction, a single Aggregate should be completely up to date. We could also choose to design the state object to redundantly hold whole identities separate of the ProductKey: This could be well worth the slight memory overhead if converting to identities had a heavy performance footprint. You’ll notice that I am using a ValueObject base class that all value objects inherit from. There are two main characteristics for value objects: 1. It is pretty typical when programming with C# and .NET to name your interfaces with an “I” prefix, so we will use IProduct: With this interface we can create a concrete implementation class. Here’s a possible surprise for you. Trying to compare two addresses as entities now becomes more difficult due to the existence of an Id that will always be unique. ... a Factory refers to an object that has the single responsibility of creating other objects. Note the ProductKey property. In Martin’s seminal P of EAA book (2002), a Domain Model is defined as ‘an object model of the domain that incorporates both behavior and data’. Unlike entities, which have an Id, our Address value object has no identity, and the equality implementation is done entirely on the properties. Are Domain Objects in Domain Driven Design only supposed to be write-only? The first characteristic was already discussed. This is part of the Domain-Driven Design w/ TypeScript & Node.js course. I am going to suggest that you allow the Entity Framework development team to be the gurus, and you just focus on your specific application. For example, the following implementation would leave the object in an invalid state… Entity. Your email address will not be published. When you turn a primitive into a value object the main line of reasoning is that it will allow you to encapsulate behavior in its own object thus better modeling the domain. I believe most are curious and. Related posts DDD Europe Conference Report - part II Objects should be constructed in one go Inject the ManagerRegistry instead of the EntityManager Relying on the database to validate your data Experimenting with Broadway. collaboration between technical and domain experts. Designing Aggregates in this way is a big mistake if you expect them (1) to be used by many thousands of users, (2) to perform well, and (3) to scale to the demands of the Internet. We champion simplicity, which requires special discipline and determination. All of the identity types, including ProductOwnerId, are Value Objects and are flattened and mapped into the same database row that ProductState occupies: The [ComplexType] attribute marks the Value Object as a complex type, which is different from an entity. D’oh, your comment widget stripped out the generic specification on Lazy in my original comment. I would discourage this as it makes using Identity classes and value objects … We purposely try to keep our special mappings, as with ProductKey, to a minimum. Aggregate is a pattern in Domain-Driven Design. My understanding of term Entity is influenced by Eric Evans (DDD). Lets start off by taking a look at our database context and configuration. We need to persist the state of these four small Aggregates and we want to use Entity Framework to do so. In many systems you’ll either see the properties of address as primitives in the Employee, or they’ll be placed in a separate table, given identity, and pulled with a join. Complex types are non-scalar values that do not have keys and cannot be managed apart from their containing entity, or the complex type within which they are nested. Our database context: You’ll notice there are no DbSets or configuration for the value objects. Figure 2. These are based on true business rules that require specific data to be up-to-date at the end of a successful database transaction. If you browse through this post too quickly some of the key words of wisdom and my intent may be lost on your speed reading. We could accomplish this simply by naming the interfaces Product, BacklogItem, Release, and Sprint, but that would mean we would have to come up with sensible names for the implementation classes. This is encapsulation: one of the 4 principles of Object-oriented programming.Encapsulation is an act of data integrity; and that's especially important in domain-modeling. Since my example code is working with a test project only, and not an ASP.NET web application, I’m just setting my connection string manually in the context. Does the answer matter? For example, if a software processes loan applications, it might have classes such as LoanApplication and Customer, and methods such as AcceptOffer and Withdraw. They are not persisted on their own; they belong to an entity. This points to the need for a few simple converters, which are used by the Product Aggregate root: Here we convert a collection of ProductBacklogItemState instances to a collection of ProductBacklogItem instances. Still, the question arises, if BacklogItem and Product have some data dependencies, how do we update both of them. The common dictionary definition of domain is: “A How do you formulate the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design properly (Bounded Contexts, Domains)? These writings discuss the main elements of DDD such as Entity, Value Object, Service etc or they talk about concepts like Ubiquitous Language, Bounded Context and Anti-Corruption Layer. The domain object that models the Aggregate behavior is backed by a state object that holds the model’s state. They have no identity. Vaughn Vernon is a software developer and architect with more than 30 years of experience in a broad range of business domains. That means that any business rules regarding data consistency must be met and the persistence store should hold that consistent state, leaving the Aggregate correct and ready to use by the next use case. If I have two Person objects, with the same Name, are they same Person? More on that later (in this blog). Modeling business concepts with objects may seem very intuitive at first sight but there are a lot of difficulties awaiting us in the details. Entity; Value Object; Domain Service; Domain Event; DDD Refference より一部抜粋 "Express Model With"と書かれている4つ. There are several characteristics that value objects have: The creation of a value object is done through the constructor, and once created, its property values can’t be changed. Record types will finally be available in C# 9: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-9#record-types, Your email address will not be published. It would be very unlikely that we would ever create two or more implementations of IProduct or any of the other interfaces. We have two Product constructors; a public business constructor for normal clients and a second internal constructor that is used only by internal implementation components: When the business constructor is invoked we create a new ProductState object and initialize it. I am hoping that this post helps to explain some of the more foundational artifacts of DDD, namely Entities. 1: In Domain-Driven Design the Evans Classification contrasts value objects with entities. So in the case of address we would end up with columns named Address_City, Address_State, and so forth. [NOTE: As expected, this article has within hours of posting received some criticism for the approach used to O-R mapping with Entity Framework. Domain-driven design is the concept that the structure and language of software code should match the business domain. このうち、 モデルを「オブジェクト(値と振る舞いを持つモノ)」として表現する のがEntityとValue Objectの2つになります。 Key structure is an implementation detail, not a DDD design choice. With DDD we. From Evans: In traditional object-oriented design, you might start modeling by identifying nouns and verbs. Lets pretend for a moment that we have an Employee class and this employee has an address. The week began as busy as ever. Two Aggregates, which represent two transactional consistency boundaries. For example, consider a Person concept. Actually the article received much more praise than criticism, but… I want to just point out that I am purposely not attempting to win any guru award in Entity Framework mapping. I am purposely avoiding some of the expert guidance that is typically given with a view to deep understanding of Entity Framework mappings. However, it is different from the ProductId, which when combined with the TenantId is the business identity. A popular gimmick I’ve seen is interviewing a Person with a famous name (but … Figure 3. This is the only way to work in procedural languages like C. So putting the differen… In Domain-Driven Design, Value Objects are one of two primitive concepts that help us to create rich and encapsulated domain models. Observe the following example of a value object: The empty constructor is necessary to work with Entity Framework Core migrations. It might help, if you have a team of developers working on … and value the. Entity: An object that is identified ... ensuring that the client has no knowledge of the inner-workings of object manipulation. DDD connects the implementation to an evolving model. In fact, you may not realize the purpose of the article unless you begin reading with the assumed attitude that “I hate O-R mapping.” The O-R mapping tooling is actually something like 20+ years old, and it is time that we come up with more practical solutions to storing objects as objects. Marking a Value Object with the Entity Framework [ComplexType] causes the data of the Value Object to be saved to the same database row as the entity. Figure 5 shows you the basic intention of this approach. Here is the Employee entity and its configuration: The OwnsOne indicates that the value object is part of the entity. In the world of DDD, there’s a well-known guideline that you should prefer Value Objects over Entities where possible. Figure 6. Vaughn is a leading expert in Domain-Driven Design, and a champion of simplicity and reactive systems. Bob Smith from Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bob Smith from Tallahassee, Florida might not agree. Some well-designed Aggregates that adhere to true consistency rules. In the meantime we should just do as little O-R mapping as we can get away with. Related. The DDD approach to writing entity classes in EF Core makes every property read-only. I know, the topic isn’t new and there are a lot of articles on the Internet discussing it already. The objective of … This article introduces the DDD entity style by comparing the standard, non-DDD approach, against a basic DDD-styled entity class. This helps keep the DbContext very simple by registering the implementation classes: Rather than fully fleshing out the details of this approach, there is enough detail already to make some judgments. Even for Value Objects containing collections, those collections ought to be immutable. The Ubiquitous Language is not really reinforced by using interfaces such as IProduct, IBacklogItem, etc. Also from the Domain-Driven Design with TypeScript article series.. We are going to implement the Product Aggregate using two approaches. All the code for this post can be found here: https://github.com/SeanLeitzinger/Entity-Framework-Core-Examples. Onion is an architectural pattern for a system, whereas DDD is a way to design a subset of the objects in the system. That should’ve read Lazy. To clarify the meaning of model elements and propose a set of design practices, Domain-Driven Design defines three patterns that express the model: Entities, Value Objects and Services. Thanks for pointing this out. As shown in Figure 6, the domain object defines and implements the domain-driven model using the Ubiquitous Language, and the state objects hold the state of the Aggregate. Including the TenantId in the ProductKey ensures that all data stored in the database is segregated by tenant. This clearly sets it apart from Entity Objects, which are object representations of only the data stored in a database (relational or not), while the behavioris located in separate classes instead. As soon as you try to step outside the basics and go to some extremes of esoteric mapping techniques in ways that Entity Framework was not meant to be used, you are going to experience a lot of pain. I think when you consider the DbContext for this solution you will conclude that we have a really simple approach: Creating and using a ProductRepository is easy as well: Taking this approach will help us to stay focused on what really counts the most, our Core Domain and its Ubiquitous Language. You’ll see I’m setting HasColumn name to override that convention. Figure 4. Value objects allow you to perform certain tricks for performance, thanks to their immutable nature. Over the past decade, CQRS has become more popular and implementing it with Entity Framework Core ma... That is, it’s dead if you are using Entity Framework Core. To define domain-driven design we should first establish what we mean by domain in this context (and in development in general). In Domain-Driven Design, such “identity-less” objects are known as “Value Objects” and contrasted with “Entities”, which have a “lifetime” (for example, a student is an entity, but a grade is a value object). Let’s call it Product: The point of the concrete class Product is to implement the business interface declared by IProduct and to also provide the accessors that are needed by Entity Framework to map the object into and out of the database. That would probably work well. This points to the another rule of Aggregate design, to use eventual consistency as shown in Figure 4. Value objects provide a wealth of benefits though when applied appropriately. We let Entity Framework to do what it knows how to do by default to map entities to and from the database. An entity: has an identity We make the implementation match up to really basic Entity Framework mappings. If you follow my KISS guidance you can mostly ignore your Entity Framework documentation and how-to books. I contrast it to a Value Object. Let me be clear about one thing concerning Domain objects: they aren't either Entities or Value Objects (VO). If you’re still using straigh... © 2020 Edgeside Solutions LLC, All Rights Reserved, DDD Value Objects With Entity Framework Core. DDD Value Objects With Entity Framework Core December 27, 2018 by Sean Leitzinger in .NET Core , C# , Domain Driven Design , Entity Framework Core , Patterns For those who aren’t familiar, there is a concept in Domain Driven Design that distinguishes between objects with identity (entities) and those without (value objects). Hmm, I wonder, instead of recomputing the HashCode on each invocation of GetHashCode, could you instead create a Lazy inside the method and only compute the object’s hash code the first time GetHashCode is called?

Good And Gather Salad Calories, Fun Dinner Ideas For Family Night, Chevrolet Impala 2018, Pharm Cards, Nursing, How To Make Grey Hair Shiny Silver, Web Form Design Best Practices, Kitchenaid Dishwasher Manual Kdfe104dss, Surya Brasil Henna Cream Black, Gaping Dragon Dark Souls Board Game, Cordyline Rubra Care, San Rafael, Heredia, Costa Rica Real Estate,


Komentarze (0) Komentujesz jako - [zmień]

aby dodać komentarz, wpisz swój adres e-mail

WPROWADŹ SWOJE DANE, ABY DODAĆ KOMENTARZ

lub

Brak komentarzy. Twój może być pierwszy.

Zobacz wcześniejsze komentarze

Wróć