I am following this codelab and one of the suggested best practices for retrieving data from a database was to use a LiveData wrapper for my DAO return values (step 6 in the codelab).
But in my app, I am reading an existing .sqlite file only once at the start of the activity. Thus using this wrapper should be unnecessary, am I correct?
So is it acceptable (in terms of best practices) to make my DAO return a simple object instead of using the LiveData construct around it?
There are two features of LiveData: delivery of updates and asynchronous operation.
If you will not be changing the data during the run of your app, you will not take advantage of the update-delivery feature of LiveData.
However, you still need to arrange to load the data on a background thread. If you plan on doing that by some other means (e.g., RxJava, your own background thread), you could avoid using LiveData.
Also, if your plan is to load all of the data in the database at the outset and never change it, then SQLite and Room are pointless. Just use a JSON file. The value in SQLite is in being able to query and modify parts of the data.
For android MVVM architecture, in all the examples that I have seen, people either use Room to store/retrieve data or they get data directly from API calls through the Repository class.
I'm neither doing an API call nor using I have Room database to store data. But I need my ViewModel to get the data from the repository and pass it to my Actvity.
Can your Repository class inherit from Application class so that you can save static variables/companion objects if you don't intend to use Room for saving data locally ?
What is a good way to handle this case?
In general, in Software Engineering a Repository is used to abstract the Data Layer (Database, Web Service) from the rest of the application (usually directly Business Tier), a good example would be this schema of a booking website:
It receives the updates via the Publish/Subscribe asynchronous connection and sends them to the other components. So the components are independent of each other.
So Repository is just a simple mediator class that is used to make the application more modular, so that you can swap out pieces easier, and make sure that the rest of the app doesn't bother with DB connections or HTTP calls and so on. So technically, you can inherit from Application (or anything else) and use it to save static variables and so on.
But as explained here:
The application object is not guaranteed to stay in memory forever, it will get killed. Contrary to popular belief, the app won’t be restarted from scratch. Android will create a new Application object and start the activity where the user was before to give the illusion that the application was never killed in the first place.
So it's entirely up to you, you can use the repository style as you wish, it's not at all tied to Room or anything else.
Repository Pattern is defined by Hieatt and Rob Mee as design pattern that mediates between the domain and data mapping layers using a collection-like interface for accessing domain objects.
Basically it abstracts one or more I/O devices (cloud, disk, data base, etc) into a common collection-like interface where you can read, write, seek and delete data.
On Fernando Cejas's Android Clean Architecture, all data needed for the application comes from this layer through a repository implementation (the interface is in the domain layer) that uses a Repository Pattern with a strategy that, through a factory, picks different data sources depending on certain conditions.
However, as pointed out by professor Douglas Schmidt at Coursera course, content provider manages and mediates access to a central repository of data to one or more applications
In the book Programming Android, content providers are used as a Facade for a RESTful Web Service. This approach was initially presented by
Virgil Dobjanschi during Google I/O 2010.
Thus, instead of using content providers to access the local SQLite database, why not using it as the repository pattern itself?
Let's try to compare the Repository Pattern definition from the book "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" by Martin Fowler
(with Dave Rice, Matthew Foemmel, Edward Hieatt, Robert Mee, and Randy Stafford) with what we know about ContentProviders.
The book states:
A Repository Mediates between the domain and data mapping layers using
a collection-like interface for accessing domain objects.
The important bit is accessing domain objects. So at first glance it seems that the repository pattern is only meant for accessing (querying) data. With a ContentProvider, however, you not only can access (read) data but also insert, update or remove data.
However, the book says:
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.
So, yes Repository and ContentProvider seem to offer the same operations (very high level point of view) although the book explicitly states simple collection of objects which is not true for ContentProvider as it requires android specific ContentValues and Cursor from Client (who uses a certain ContentProvider) to interact with.
Also, the book mentions domain objects and data mapping layers:
A Repository Mediates between the domain and data mapping layers
and
Under the covers, Repository combines Metadata Mapping (329) with a Query Object (316)
Metadata Mapping holds details of object-relational mapping in metadata.
Metadata Mapping basically means i.e. how to map a SQL column to a java class field.
As already mentioned ContentProvider returns a Cursor object from a query() operation. From my point of view a Cursor is not a domain object. Moreover, mapping from cursor to domain object must be done by the client (who uses a ContentProvider). So data mapping is completely missing in ContentProvider from my point of view. Furthermore, the client may have to use a ContentResolver too to get the domain object (data). In my opinion this API is a clear contradiction with the definition from the book:
Repository also supports the objective of achieving a clean separation
and one-way dependency between the domain and data mapping layers
Next let's focus on the core idea of the Repository pattern:
In a large system with many domain object types and many possible
queries, Repository reduces the amount of code needed to deal with all
the querying that goes on. Repository promotes the Specification
pattern (in the form of the criteria object in the examples here),
which encapsulates the query to be performed in a pure object-oriented
way. Therefore, all the code for setting up a query object in specific
cases can be removed. Clients need never think in SQL and can write
code purely in terms of objects.
ContentProvider requires a URI (string). So it's not really a "object-oriented way". Also a ContentProvider may need a projection and a where-clause.
So one could argue that a URI string is some kind of encapsulation as the client can use this string instead of writing specific SQL code for instance:
With a Repository, client code constructs the criteria and then passes
them to the Repository, asking it to select those of its objects that
match. From the client code's perspective, there's no notion of query
"execution"; rather there's the selection of appropriate objects
through the "satisfaction" of the query's specification.
ContentProvider using a URI (string) doesn't seem to contradict with that definition, but still misses the emphasized object-oriented way. Also strings are not reusable criteria objects that can be reused in a general way to compose criteria specification to "reduces the amount of code needed to deal with all the querying that goes on."
For example, to find person objects by name we first create a criteria
object, setting each individual criterion like so:
criteria.equals(Person.LAST_NAME, "Fowler"), and
criteria.like(Person.FIRST_NAME, "M"). Then we invoke
repository.matching(criteria) to return a list of domain objects
representing people with the last name Fowler and a first name
starting with M.
As you have already said (in your question) Repository is also useful to hide different data sources as an implementation detail the client doesn't know about.
This is true for ContentProviders and specified in the book:
The object source for the Repository may not be a relational database
at all, which is fine as Repository lends itself quite readily to the
replacement of the data-mapping component via specialized strategy
objects. For this reason it can be especially useful in systems with
multiple database schemas or sources for domain objects, as well as
during testing when use of exclusively in-memory objects is desirable
for speed.
and
Because Repository's interface shields the domain layer from awareness
of the data source, we can refactor the implementation of the querying
code inside the Repository without changing any calls from clients.
Indeed, the domain code needn't care about the source or destination
of domain objects.
So to conclude: Some definitions from Martin Fowler et al. book match the API of a ContentProvider (if you ignore the fact that the book emphasized object-oriented):
Hides the fact that a repository / ContentProvider has different data sources
Client never has to write a query in a datasource specific DSL like SQL. That is true for ContentProvider if we consider URI as not datasource specific.
Both, Repository and ContentProvider, have the same "high level" set of operations: read, insert, update and remove data (if you ignore the fact that Fowler talks a lot about object orientated and collection of objects whereas ContentProvider uses Cursor and ContentValues)
However, ContentProvider really misses some key points of the repository pattern as described in the book:
Since ContentProvider uses URI (also string for the where clause) a client can't reuse Matching Criteria objects. That is an important thing to note. The book clearly says that the repository pattern is useful "In a large system with many domain object types and many possible queries, Repository reduces the amount of code needed to deal with all the querying that goes on". Unfortunately, ContentProvider doesn't have Criteria objects like criteria.equals(Person.LAST_NAME, "Fowler") that can be reused and used to compose matching criterias (since you have to use strings).
ContentProvider miss entirely data mapping as it returns a Cursor. This is very bad because a client (who uses a ContentProvider to access data) has to do the mapping of Cursor to domain object. Furthermore, that means that client has knowledge of repository internals like name of columns. "Repository can be a good mechanism for improving readability and clarity in code that uses querying extensively." That certainly is not true for ContentProviders.
So no, a ContentProvider is not a implementation of the Repository pattern as defined in the Book "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" because it misses at least two essential things I have pointed out above.
Also, please note that as the name of the book already suggests, the repository pattern is meant to be used for Enterprise Application where you do a lot of queries.
Android developers tend to use the term "Repository pattern" but don't actually mean the "original" pattern described by Fowler et al. (high reusability of Criterias for queries) but rather mean a interface to hide the underlying data source (SQL, Cloud, whatever) and domain object mapping.
More here: http://hannesdorfmann.com/android/evolution-of-the-repository-pattern
Short answer: a Contentprovider is a datasource and not a repository.
The purpose of SQL-Database/Android-Contentproviders/Repositories is to create/read/update/delete/find data
Repositories usually operate on high level busines specific java classes (like Customer, Order, Product, ....)
while SQL-Database and Android-Contentproviders operate on low level table, rows and colums as a datasource.
Because a SQL-Database is not a repository so an Android-Contentprovider is not a repository, too.
But you can implement a repository by using an underlying Contentprovider
I'll mention Dianne Hackborn (from Android Framework team) to give my opinion.
ContentProvider
Finally, the ContentProvider is a fairly specialized facility for publishing data from an app to other places. People generally think of them as an abstraction on a database, because there is a lot of API and support built in to them for that common case... but from the system design perspective, that isn't their point.
What these are to the system is an entry-point into an app for publishing named data items, identified by a URI scheme. Thus an app can decide how it wants to map the data it contains to a URI namespace, handing out those URIs to other entities which can in turn use them to access the data. There are a few particular things this allows the system to do in managing an app:
• Handing out a URI doesn't require the app remain running, so these can go all over the place with the owning app being dead. Only at the point where someone tells the system, "hey give me the data for this URI" does it need to make sure the app owning that data is running, so it can ask the app to retrieve and return the data.
• These URIs also provide an important fine-grained security model. For example, an application can place the URI for an image it has on the clipboard, but leave its content provider locked up so nobody can freely access it. When another app pulls that URI off the clipboard, the system can give it a temporary "URI permission grant" so that it is allowed to access the data only behind that URI, but nothing else in the app.
What we don't care about:
It doesn't really matter how you implement the data management behind a content provider; if you don't need structured data in a SQLite database, don't use SQLite. For example, the FileProvider helper class is an easy way to make raw files in your app available through a content provider.
Also, if you are not publishing data from your app for others to use, there is no need to use a content provider at all. It is true, because of the various helpers built around content providers, this can be an easy way to put data in a SQLite database and use it to populate UI elements like a ListView. But if any of this stuff makes what you are trying to do more difficult, then feel free to not use it and instead use a more appropriate data model for your app.
Full text here:
https://plus.google.com/+DianneHackborn/posts/FXCCYxepsDU
Kudos for the question, it's a nice observation :). IMHO, this is not a yes or no question because it is quite general, as most design patterns related topics are. The answer is depending on what context are you taking in account:
If you have an app that relies entirely on the platform, meaning that take into account only the context of the Android ecosystem, then yes, the ContentProvider IS an implementation of the Repository pattern. The argument here it is that the content provider was designed to solve some of the same challenges that the repository patterns aim to solve:
It provides abstraction over data layer, so the code is not necessarily dependent on the storage environment
No direct data access from everywhere. You can put all your SQL queries (or whatever) in a single place. When I first implemented a ContentProvider as a noob, it was like a revelation to me how clean my code can look like and how comfortable I can be doing changes
Centralizes the data and shares it between multiple clients (other apps, a search widget as you already know) and provides mechanism for data security
You can definitely define data related behavior (one way is by using ContentObserver)
It's a pretty good way to force you from the early stages to organize your code with unit testing/ automated testing in mind
If you put all of above side by side with the principles of the repository pattern, there are some serious similarities. Not all of them are satisfied, but the core ideas are the same.
Now, considering an app working on a larger scale in multiple environments (i.e web, mobile, PC) the requirements change completely. It is a bad idea as everyone suggested to rely on the ContentProvider as a design pattern.
It's not necessarily a bad idea in itself, but a design pattern must be implemented so others can understand your code as fast as possible. You see, even here everyone suggested a common use of ContentProvider: as a datasource, or anyhow something platform dependent. So if you force an implementation on top of a component with known purpose, things can become rather unclear. It's much nicer to organize your code in a classical pattern.
tl;dr; If your app is isolated on your Android device you can definitely merge the two concepts. If your app is used on a larger scale, on multiple platforms it's cleaner, to organize your code in a classical manner.
That is an interesting question. I think my first answer will be no, Content Provider is not an implementation of the Repository Pattern.
As you mentioned, the Repository Pattern is meant to separate the business logic (domain) from the data layer. This approach allows you to create unit tests for your business logic (so domain should not depend on Android at all). By using a Content Provider you will need to have some sort of Android objects in your domain.
You could imagine a way to hide the Content Provider logic behind an Interface, but you will loose many of the nice stuff a Content Provider allows you to do.
If you are interested in Android Architecture I would recommend you to have a look at this Github project Android Clean Architecture. You will find a nice way to separate your presentation, domain and data layer, and the communication between the domain and data is done by using a Repository Pattern.
Hope this will help!
IMHO, it's better to consider a Contentprovider as a datasource, although the data can be stored in several ways (SQLite database, files, ...), to keep some independence between the architecture and the Android framework.
A Google repository provide some samples of architecture. One of them contains an example of architecture with a content provider and a repository :
googlesamples/android-architecture/todo-mvp-contentproviders
Selected excerpts :
You could then use content providers to support additional features that are not covered by this sample, providing the following possible benefits:
Allow you to securely share data stored in your app with other apps.
Add support for custom searches in your app.
Develop widgets which access data in your app.
The problem with using ContentProviders as Repository is that you add a dependency in your model to the Android Framework. Using the repository patterns allows you to easily mock, test and replace implementations.
The correct approach would be to hide the ContentProvider under an interface, and have the model accessing the data through this interface. This way, your code is decoupled from the platform.
Basically, the ContentProvider is the I/O source you want to abstract.
Content Provider is a Android component, the smell will not be good if you mix the repository concept with this component, it creates a blocking dependency on your application.
I'm facing with issue that Firebase as Realtime Database works great while we connect it with Activity or Fragment. But trying to separate from view elements and create some abstraction for it (because e.g. we want to replace it while testing or in the future) becomes quite hard, especially trying to implement MVP pattern.
Are there any solutions for this issue?
There should be no inherent coupling between Firebase and UI (unless you're using FirebaseUI). Typical solution would be to encapsulate firebase database access in some kind of Service/DAO class (injected in to UI classes using Dagger for example)....and have methods in that class return RxJava Observable (this also nicely enables making sets of nested firebase queries....for example if doing something equivalent to a "join")
Just save a string value in your resources and save your DB path
Then when you create a DatabaseReference use that value to point to the base of either your real or test DB
I'm starting to learn Android development, and also have been trying to follow the DDD design patterns. One thing that has me confused is where application logic goes with respect to ContentProviders.
ContentProviders look a lot like repositories to me, but a lot of times I don't want to expose my repositories directly. There may be some additional application logic inside a Service which the repositories/database.
Most of the examples of ContentProviders I find show them accessing the database directly. Is it wrong to have a Service or Application object in between the ContentProviders and database?
For example I'm trying to create a personal finance/budget app (e.g Mint/Quicken etc..). I'm going to have a database of transactions and a corresponding TransactionProvider. In most cases transactions are independent from one another. Yet if two transactions are marked as part of the same "Transfer" there there will be some fields that I will want to keep in sync between the two transactions. If someone changes the category or amount of one transaction, I want to make sure the same values are updated for the transaction for the other account of the transfer.
A ContentProvider can execute arbitrary code on its insert(), update(), delete() and query() methods. They are not necessarily mapped one-to-one with the corresponding database operations, and neither do the structure definitions (i.e. fields) themselves. You could, for example:
Update more than one table when you insert, update or delete.
Keep normalized tables in SQLite, but present a non-normalized interface for querying.
Not store data in a database at all (for example to expose/manipulate the files available in your application's private storage).
&c.
So you can, indeed, include whatever business logic you want in the "backend" of the ContentProvider. In your case that would mean updating associated records to keep them in sync.
Just to clarify, since you're starting Android development, it's not necessary to build a ContentProvider if you just want to store data in SQLite -- you can use SQLiteDatabase directly for that. A ContentProvider is generally to expose your own data to other applications, or for specialized cases such as search suggestions.
From Creating a Content Provider:
Decide if you need a content provider. You need to build a content
provider if you want to provide one or more of the following features:
You want to offer complex data or files to other applications.
You want to allow users to copy complex data from your app into other apps.
You want to provide custom search suggestions using the search framework.
You don't need a provider to use an SQLite database if the use is
entirely within your own application.
If you're building a financial data app, you probably don't need one. Do you want other applications to be able to access that data?