I have been trying to learn Object Oriented Design, but I find it very difficult to model objects that access a relational database and do JOINs.

For example, I am building a REST API, it has User, Admin and Event entities.
Admins can issue Users registration for Events.

This is the database schema:





I have an endpoint /participant/registered_events which gives info of all events registered by a user.

class EventInfo {
   public int id;
   public String name;
   public int issuedAdminId;
   public String issuedAdminName;

EventInfo[] getRegisteredEvents(userid, participantid) {
   Result result = executeSql(
        "SELECT Event.id, Event.name," +
                " Admin.id as admin_id, Admin.name as admin_name" +
        " FROM UserEventRegistration " + 
        " JOIN Event ON event_id = Event.id " + 
        " JOIN Admin ON admin_id = Admin.id"
   // convert result into EventInfo objects
   return eventsInfo;

The above code is not properly object oriented, but I don't know which class to place the code. If I put it in class RegistrationManager, now RegistrationManager is strongly coupled to the structure of Admin table and Event table.

Where is the appropriate place to put this JOIN query?

Edit (04 Oct 2019): Made the example a bit more clearer and complete. Incorporated suggestions from answers to narrow down the scope of the question.

4 Answers 4


Very often, when you have a behavior where you cannot decide which of two objects should have it, that is because either

  • the two objects should actually be one object or
  • there is a third object missing.

A great example is the classic "Bank account" that is so often used as an introduction to OO. In the typical example, balance is data and deposit is an operation. This leads to all sorts of problems, but the one we are focusing on here is: where do you put the transfer method? If a transfers money to b, should it be a.transfer(b, amount) or b.transfer(a, amount)? Why would a even know about b? Why would b even know about a? Why would either of the two even know how to transfer money?

However, that is actually not how banking works in real-life and is also not how banking systems are typically designed.

In the real-world, deposit is actually data (it is a transaction slip) and balance is an operation (summing up all transaction slips for one account). This is the way banking was done for hundreds of years, and it is actually also how banking systems are written.

This has some advantages for concurrency (now, both Accounts and TransactionSlips are immutable, and balance is a pure function). But, it also solves our conundrum above: neither a nor b know how to transfer money, the bank knows that. transfer is now actually new TransactionSlip(a, b, amount).

Back to your specific example: it looks like what you are missing is at least one object, possibly even two:

  • Registration: Encapsulates the fact of a user being registered for an event
  • Registry: contains all Registrations
  • This is nice. But how to solve the problem of getRegisteredEventsForUser()? If I don't break encapsulation by doing a join, I will end up doing N+1 queries right?
    – itsfarseen
    Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 0:20
  • 3
    The additional missing entity described here is not only a problem of your Object-Oriented Design, it is also a problem for your underlying database. The database should not only have a Users and an Events Table, it should also have a UserEventRegistrations Table acting as the associative entity, in order to be in first normal form. Then, querying this table should pose no problem. If you store EventIDs in the Users table and/or vice versa, then yes, you would probably need N+1 queries. Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 1:07
  • @VectorZita But even after creating a UserEventRegistrations table, it would still have to do joins or N+1 queries right?
    – itsfarseen
    Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 1:11
  • 1
    Well, minimally, the table contains the fields (for example) [RegistrationID, UserID, EventID]. For each new registration, the table contains one record. Retrieving all events for a user or all users for an event are single-queries into that table, i.e. "select all [RegistrationID, EventID] from UserEventRegistrations, where UserID is John Doe". Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 1:23
  • 1
    By "seats" you mean "how many users are left to register to the event" as in "each event has a limited number of potential listeners"? If so, there are various ways to deal with this type of concern. One of them, for example, is to actively track this number for each event, within your O-O design, i.e. maintain a map holding the number of users that are registered for each event. Upon every new event registration, the count will be increased for that event. This way, you don't need to calculate anything, your remaining_seats per event is always up-to-date, inside the map. Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 3:35

One answer has already suggested that there is a third object required. I totally agree, and would introduce a Booking (or BookingManager) class that knows how to link (and delink) Users to Events. This class would support your registerUserForEvent(String userid, String eventid) and getRegisteredEventsForUser(String userid) methods.

Putting the booking logic in either the User or Event class breaks the rule that a class should do one thing and do it well. Users do not need to know about events, and events do not need to know about users.

I would not get too hung up on what database joins are required. Modern databases are very good at doing joins and worrying about them at design time is often regarded as premature optimisation.


If I put it in User class, it will have to know about how to check an event with given String eventId exists in the DB.

Objects are not tables, nor data. One object can very well know stuff from different tables, or join underlying tables together.

You did not state any additional behavior that needs to be supported, but based on what we know Event could be an interface and everything could be implemented in the User object. This way there is no violation of encapsulation.

  • Sorry for not providing enough details, I have updated the question now. Can I still make Event an interface?
    – itsfarseen
    Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 14:24
  • 1
    Yes you can, but you could also make it an implementation actually. It doesn't seem it can do much, so the User can have full control of it, including joining the appropriate tables to get it. Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 14:50
  • Wouldn't it be confusing to put methods manipulating Event table in User class?
    – itsfarseen
    Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 15:38
  • 1
    In general no, it shouldn't. As I said, objects are not rows of a table, they are not a CRUD layer on the database, they are not data. They are business-relevant (i.e. not technical), and are defined by behavior (i.e. what they can do, not what they know). Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 20:20

There is the wonderful world of Inheritance that allows you to create a tree refinement for your classes. From top level own to fully detailed, with each layer inheriting the parent layer. Another option is Aspect Oriented Programming, which uses cross cutting annotations to adorn functions and attributes with behaviour orthogonal to the class function, things like logging and security are good examples.

  • 2
    Inheritance is going out of fashion, for good reasons. And I really can’t see how inheritance would help with the problem here.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Sep 30, 2019 at 12:55
  • polymorphic behaviour is a behaviour that is general to many items but specific in overwritten implementations, very powerful way of creating a shared logic layer if you b Commented Oct 17, 2019 at 2:43
  • ps, inheritance is the backbone of object oriented programming and will never go out of fashion Commented Oct 17, 2019 at 2:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.