Repository模式：每个实体的一个repository类？ [英] Repository pattern: One repository class for each entity?

问题描述

假设你有一个LINQ类中定义以下实体：

Say you have the following entities defined in a LINQ class:

Product
Customer
Category

我应该有一个存储库类的所有：

Should I have one repository class for all:

StoreRepository

...或者我应该有：

... or should I have:

ProductRepository
CustomerRepository
CategoryRepository

有哪些正面和每个的利弊？就我而言，我有我的几个解决方案中的应用程序...的Store应用只是其中之一。

What are the pro & cons of each? In my case, I have several "applications" within my solution... the Store application is just one of them.

推荐答案

这是我的观点。我Repository模式的严格的追随者。应该有3种方法是取一个单独的实体。添加，更新，删除，一般定义。

Here's my point of view. I'm a strict follower of the Repository pattern. There should be 3 methods that take a single entity. Add, Update, Delete, generically defined.

public interface IRepository<T>
{
     void Add(T entity);
     void Update(T entity);
     void Delete(T entity);
}

除了这些方法，你正在处理一个查询或服务的方法。如果我是你，我会做genrically如上定义的库中，增加了QueryProvider，如下图所示和把你的业务逻辑的它所属的任一服务或命令/查询（来自CQRS，谷歌吧）

Beyond those methods, you're dealing with a "Query" or a service method. If I were you, I'd make the repository genrically defined as above, add a "QueryProvider" as shown below and put your business logic where it belongs in either "Services" or in "Commands/Queries" (comes from CQRS, Google it).

public interface IQueryProvider<T>
{
     TResult Query<TResult>(Func<IQueryable<T>, TResult> query);
}

（希望我的看法是有点用:)）

(Hope my opinion is somewhat useful :) )

这篇关于Repository模式：每个实体的一个repository类？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！