Update CORS config; add architecture discussion comments

- Make CORS policy environment-aware: allow any origin in development, restrict to configured origins in production.
- Add detailed comments in CatalogService.cs and ICatalogRepository.cs discussing generic CRUD services, CQRS with MediatR, and repository interface placement, including both Copilot's and Hakan's perspectives.
- No functional changes to service or repository logic.

DbFirst.API/Program.cs

@@ -14,20 +14,22 @@ builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
 builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
 
 // TODO: allow listed origins configured in appsettings.json
+// In any case, dont let them to free to use without cors. if there is no origin specified, block all.
+// In development you can keep it easy.
 builder.Services.AddCors(options =>
-{
+{    
-    var origins = builder.Configuration.GetSection("Cors:AllowedOrigins").Get<string[]>() ?? Array.Empty<string>();
     options.AddDefaultPolicy(policy =>
     {
-        if (origins.Length > 0)
+        if(builder.Environment.IsDevelopment())
         {
-            policy.WithOrigins(origins)
+            policy.AllowAnyOrigin()
                   .AllowAnyHeader()
                   .AllowAnyMethod();
         }
         else
         {
-            policy.AllowAnyOrigin()
+            var origins = builder.Configuration.GetSection("Cors:AllowedOrigins").Get<string[]>() ?? [];
+            policy.WithOrigins(origins)
                   .AllowAnyHeader()
                   .AllowAnyMethod();
         }

DbFirst.Application/Catalogs/CatalogService.cs

@@ -6,9 +6,33 @@ using DbFirst.Domain;
 namespace DbFirst.Application.Catalogs;
 
 //TODO: create generic service to reduce code duplication
-//TODO (TR): kod tekrar?n? azaltmak için generic bir servis/basit CRUD altyap?s? ekleyin
+
+/* Copilot's Response:
+A generic CRUD base service adds little value in your case:
+
+Pros:
+• Less boilerplate for simple entities without special logic.
+• Uniform CRUD signatures.
+
+Cons/Practical here:
+• Domain logic differs per entity(unique title check, setting audit fields, forbidding title changes, stored procs with output GUID).
+• Generic services tend to be diluted by virtual methods/hooks for special cases—ending up with per-entity overrides and little real gain.
+• With stored procedures and output parameters, the pattern doesn’t fit cleanly because operations aren’t symmetric (separate procs for insert/update/delete).
+
+Conclusion: For this solution a generic service would be more overhead than benefit. If you later have multiple very similar entities without special logic,
+you could consider a lightweight generic interface/base; for now, the specialized service implementation is cleaner. */
+
+/* Hakan's Response: 
+ * No, it absolutely makes sense to create a generic service using Options pattern. So, you can easily inject your SQL queries or stored procedure names via configuration.
+ * see: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/extensions/options
+ */
+
 //TODO: implement CQRS pattern with MediatR
-//TODO (TR): CQRS desenini MediatR ile uygulay?n
+
+/* Hakan's response
+ * Here is the main part. We dont even need a service layer if we implement CQRS with MediatR at least for CRUD operations.
+ */
+
 public class CatalogService : ICatalogService
 {
     private readonly ICatalogRepository _repository;

DbFirst.Domain/Repositories/ICatalogRepository.cs

@@ -3,6 +3,38 @@ using DbFirst.Domain;
 
 namespace DbFirst.Domain.Repositories;
 
+// TODO: instead of creating interface per entity, consider using generic repository pattern (eg. IRepository<T>) to reduce code duplication.
+
+/* Copilot's Response:
+
+A generic Repository<T> isn’t really worthwhile here:
+    • Reads from the view are generic, but inserts/updates/deletes go through stored procedures with special parameters/output GUIDs.You’d need lots of exceptions/overrides—little gain.
+    • Operations aren’t symmetric (separate procs for insert/update/delete with output handling and reload), so a one-size-fits-all CRUD pattern doesn’t fit well.
+    • Better to keep the specialized repo.If you want reuse, extract small helpers (e.g., for proc calls/output parameters/reload) instead of forcing a generic repository. */
+
+
+/* Hakan's Response: 
+ * I think it still makes sense. An execute SQL method can be added to repository. The relevant SQL can be executed in the application layer.
+ * Because the application layer is no longer dependent on a method like CreateAsync. It is now directly dependent on that procedure.
+ */
+
+// TODO: move to application layer as a part of clean architecture
+
+/* Copilot's Response:
+
+    • Common: Keep the interface in the Domain layer, implementation in Infrastructure. Domain defines the data access contract, Infrastructure provides the implementation.
+    That matches typical DDD/Clean Architecture.
+    • Alternative: Move the interface to the Application layer. Then only Application depends on Infrastructure, Domain stays isolated from infra contracts.
+    Pro: Domain contains only models/rules.
+    Con: If Domain logic needs repos, it would depend on Application, weakening the layer separation.
+    Recommendation: Keep the interface in Domain. It’s conventional, clean, and avoids a Domain -> Application dependency. Implementation stays in Infrastructure. */
+
+/* Hakan's Response:
+ *  I don't think there's any point in keeping repository interfaces in the domain layer. These interfaces will be used in the application layer, not the domain layer. 
+ *  Furthermore, this is how they are used in the most popular clean architecture pattern. 
+ *  See: https://github.com/jasontaylordev/CleanArchitecture/blob/main/src/Infrastructure/Identity/IdentityService.cs
+ */
+
 public interface ICatalogRepository
 {
     Task<List<VwmyCatalog>> GetAllAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default);