I have a situation as described in the ExtbaseFluid book:
I would like to store information in the intermediate table which is not recommended at all.
Here is a cite from the warning box of the above linked book chapter:
Do not store data in the Intermediate Table that concern the Domain. Though TYPO3 supports this (especially in combination with Inline Relational Record Editing (IRRE) but this is always a sign that further improvements can be made to your Domain Model. Intermediate Tables are and should always be tools for storing relationships and nothing else.
Let’s say you want to store a CD with its containing music tracks: CD -- m:n (Intermediate Table) -- Song. The track number may be stored in a field of the Intermediate Table. However, the track should be stored as a separate domain object, and the connection be realized as CD -- 1:n -- Track -- n:1 -- Song.
So I want not to do what is not recommended. But thinking about the workflow for the editor that results of the recommended solution rises a few question for me.
To stay with this example I would need the following tables:
tx_extname_domain_model_cd
tx_extname_domain_model_cd_track_mm
tx_extname_domain_model_track (which holds the track number)
tx_extname_domain_model_track_song_mm
tx_extname_domain_model_song
From what I know this would end in the situation that the editor would need to create following records:
one record for the cd
one record for the song
now the editor can create one record for the track.
There the track number is added.
Furthermore the cd record needs to be assigned as well as the song.
So here are my questions:
I guess this workflow cannot be improved with some (to me unknown) TCA setup?
An editor cannot directly reach the song when the cd record is opened?
Instead first she / he has to open the track record and can from there navigate to the song?
Is it really that bad to store data in the intermediate table? The TYPO3 table sys_file_reference does the same!? But I wonder how those data could be shown (because IRRE is not possible because it shall only be used for 1:n relations (source).
The question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to do coding by the book, or do I want to create a pragmatic approach to solve a customer's problem?
In this specific case the additional problem is, that the people who originally invented Extbase had a quite sophisticated and academic approach, but when it comes to a pragmatic use and performance, they were blocked by their own rules and stuck with coding by the book.
Especially this example and the warning message shows a way of thinking that was one of the reasons, why I never actually used Extbase but went for Core-API methods to create performant and pragmatic queries to get the desired result sets. Now that we've got Doctrine under the hood, this works like a charm even with quite exotic DB flavors.
Of course intermediate tables are a good idea and of course those intermediate tables can and should be enriched with additional data fields, that do not require a 3rd, 4th or nth table to store i.e. a simple set of dropdown options, since this can easily be handled with attributes configured in TCA, as it is shown here: https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/reference-tca/master/en-us/ColumnsConfig/Type/Inline/Examples.html
sys_file_reference is the most prominent example since it provides exactly that kind of additional information that should not be pumped into additional tables - and guess what, the TYPO3 core does not make use of a single line of Extbase code to deal with that data or almost any other data of the core tables.
To answer your last question: Take a look at the good old IRRE Tutorial to get a clue how to do m:n connections with intermediate inline tables.
https://docs.typo3.org/typo3cms/extensions/irre_tutorial/0.4.0/Manual/Index.html#intermediate-tables-for-m-n-relations
Depends on the issue, sometimes the intermediate table is an entity, sometimes not. In this example the intermediate table is the track, which would contain: [uid, cd, song, track_no, ... (whatever else needed to define the track)]
Be carefull when you define your data, that you do not make it too advanced.
Related
Some of the Users in my database will also be Practitioners.
This could be represented by either:
an is_practitioner flag in the User table
a separate Practitioner table with a user_id column
It isn't clear to me which approach is better.
Advantages of flag:
fewer tables
only one id per user (hence no possibility of confusion, and also no confusion in which id to use in other tables)
flexibility (I don't have to decide whether fields are Practitioner-only or not)
possible speed advantage for finding User-level information for a practitioner (e.g. e-mail address)
Advantages of new table:
no nulls in the User table
clearer as to what information pertains to practitioners only
speed advantage for finding practitioners
In my case specifically, at the moment, practitioner-related information is generally one-to-many (such as the locations they can work in, or the shifts they can work, etc). I would not be at all surprised if it turns I need to store simple attributes for practitioners (i.e., one-to-one).
Questions
Are there any other considerations?
Is either approach superior?
You might want to consider the fact that, someone who is a practitioner today, is something else tomorrow. (And, by that I don't mean, not being a practitioner). Say, a consultant, an author or whatever are the variants in your subject domain, and you might want to keep track of his latest status in the Users table. So it might make sense to have a ProfType field, (Type of Professional practice) or equivalent. This way, you have all the advantages of having a flag, you could keep it as a string field and leave it as a blank string, or fill it with other Prof.Type codes as your requirements grow.
You mention, having a new table, has the advantage for finding practitioners. No, you are better off with a WHERE clause on the users table for that.
Your last paragraph(one-to-many), however, may tilt the whole choice in favour of a separate table. You might also want to consider, likely number of records, likely growth, criticality of complicated queries etc.
I tried to draw two scenarios, with some notes inside the image. It's really only a draft just to help you to "see" the various entities. May be you already done something like it: in this case do not consider my answer please. As Whirl stated in his last paragraph, you should consider other things too.
Personally I would go for a separate table - as long as you can already identify some extra data that make sense only for a Practitioner (e.g.: full professional title, University, Hospital or any other Entity the Practitioner is associated with).
So in case in the future you discover more data that make sense only for the Practitioner and/or identify another distinct "subtype" of User (e.g. Intern) you can just add fields to the Practitioner subtable, or a new Table for the Intern.
It might be advantageous to use a User Type field as suggested by #Whirl Mind above.
I think that this is just one example of having to identify different type of Objects in your DB, and for that I refer to one of my previous answers here: Designing SQL database to represent OO class hierarchy
I recently found myself using some rather lengthy names for the tables and views involved in a development piece, which got me wondering whether it's possible to create client/database/server level aliases for objects.
Say for example I have a view named dbo.vAlphaBetaGammaDelta . Is there a way (with or without Intellisense) to create a reference to it named dbo.vABGD ?
If not, would there be any downfalls to creating a view of a view or single table aside from maintenance necessary if/when the table schema changes?
I should note that these aliases/views would not be intended for use in other objects, but for alleviation and prevention of carpal tunnel during day-to-day troubleshooting and delving xD
SQL Server allows for the creation of synonyms. That seems to be what you are looking for: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177544.aspx
However, as #MitchWheat mentioned. this seems to be going in the wrong direction. There are a few quite good SSMS plugins available that provide auto completion of long object names (e.g. SQL Prompt). Incidentally those products have trouble with synonyms...
There are many cases where you would like to have synonyms.
Let me state just one for start:
You have a well defined hypothetical name of a table: GlobalStatisticalRecord. Hundreds of lines of code and objects (keys, indexes, etc.) in SQL and elsewhere are referring to this table name.
After 5 years of usage, the abbreviation GSR was accustomed not only among the technical people, but also among the business users. So, to stress again, GSR is now even more recognizable than GlobalStatisticalRecord. However, for the new people that come into the technical team, it is good to keep the name GlobalStatisticalRecord as a table name, since it nicely describes what is the table all about. Now, when writing a quick adhoc query - and that may not be from your tool of choice with all the Intellisense features you are accustom to - then these aliases are really saving your time (and "life" at 2am in the morning when you are frantically trying to diagnose a production problem).
Please, if you never faced a case when you would need this, just don't assume that there is none.
I stressed the adhoc adjective, since I agree that in permanent queries (stored procedures, etc.), for the reasons you pointed out, it is advisable to use the full table names.
I have a situation where we have a base recordset with about one hundred thousand records. And, we are creating a separate application that shares some of the dataset, but not most, so we are creating a detail table that has a one to one relationship with the original table. What I want to do is pull the existing information from the original table and display it as read only, but I want the fields in the detail table to be writeable.
I've started by creating a listing with the contents of the original table, I want the user to be able to seemlessly hit "edit" by an entry and be taken to the form to create the detail record, click save, and have it update, or create the record.
So, what is the best way to do this?
This question is old, but in order to help future searchers...
Including a related table in a form is handled automatically if your DBIx::Class result sources are correctly setup. A related table can be pulled into the form by simply defining a compound field using the relationship name of the other field and defining subfields with the names of the columns in the related table.
See: HTML::FormHandler::Manual::Fields
And: HTML::FormHandler::Manual::Database
This isn't a real answer, in that I can't really provide you with a solution, but I can hopefully provide you with somewhere to start. I think you need to define a form in HTML::FormHandler which represents a single row from your detail table, then build your read-only form from multiple instances of single-row form. This article describes the problem and a partial solution much better than I have:
http://catdev.blogspot.com/2009/05/defining-form-processing-problem.html
I'm fairly new to Perl and HTML::FormHandler, and there's a good chance that there is a better way of doing this. It's a problem that I have solved 'manually' in PHP before, but one which I am sure I will come across in Perl.
What are some possible designs to deal with frequently changing data forms?
I have a basic CRUD web application where the main data entry form changes yearly. So each record should be tied to a specific version of the form. This requirement is kind of new, so the existing application was not built with this in mind.
I'm looking for different ways of handling this, hoping to avoid future technical debt. Here are some options I've come up with:
Create a new object, UI and set of tables for each version. This is obviously the most naive approach.
Keep adding all the fields to the same object and DB tables, but show/hide them based on the form version. This will become a mess after a few changes.
Build form definitions, then dynamically build the UI and store the data as some dictionary like format (e.g. JSON/XML or maybe an document oriented database) I think this is going to be too complex for the scope of this app, especially for the UI.
What other possibilities are there? Does anyone have experience doing this? I'm looking for some design patterns to help deal with the complexity.
First, I will speak to your solutions above and then I will give my answer.
Creating a new table for each
version is going to require new
programming every year since you will
not be able to dynamically join to
the new table and include the new
columns easily. That seems pretty obvious and really makes this a bad choice.
The issues you mentioned with adding
the columns to the same form are
correct. Also, whatever database you
are using has a max on how many
columns it can handle and how many
bytes it can have in a row. That could become another concern.
The third option I think is the
closest to what you want. I would
not store the new column data in a
JSON/XML unless it is for duplication
to increase speed. I think this is
your best option
The only option you didn't mention
was storing all of the data in 1
database field and using XML to
parse. This option would make it
tough to query and write reports
against.
If I had to do this:
The first table would have the
columns ID (seeded), Name,
InputType, CreateDate,
ExpirationDate, and CssClass. I
would call it tbInputs.
The second table would have the have
5 columns, ID, Input_ID (with FK to
tbInputs.ID), Entry_ID (with FK to
the main/original table) value, and
CreateDate. The FK to the
main/original table would allow you
to find what items were attached to
what form entry. I would call this
table tbInputValues.
If you don't
plan on having that base table then
I would use a simply table that tracks the creation date, creator ID,
and the form_id.
Once you have those you will just need to create a dynamic form that pulls back all of the inputs that are currently active and display them. I would put all of the dynamic controls inside of some kind of container like a <div> since it will allow you to loop through them without knowing the name of every element. Then insert into tbInputValues the ID of the input and its value.
Create a form to add or remove an
input. This would mean you would
not have much if any maintenance
work to do each year.
I think this solution may not seem like the most eloquent but if executed correctly I do think it is your most flexible solution that requires the least amount of technical debt.
I think the third approach (XML) is the most flexible. A simple XML structure is generated very fast and can be easily versioned and validated against an XSD.
You'd have a table holding the XML in one column and the year/version this xml applies to.
Generating UI code based on the schema is basically a bad idea. If you do not require extensive validation, you can opt for a simple editable table.
If you need a custom form every year, I'd look at it as kind of a job guarantee :-) It's important to make the versioning mechanism and extension transparent and explicit though.
For this particular app, we decided to deal with the problem as if there was one form that continuously grows. Due to the nature of the form this seemed more natural than more explicit separation. We will have a mapping of year->field for parts of the application that do need to know which data is for which year.
For the UI, we will be creating a new page for each year's form. Dynamic form creation is far too complex in this situation.
I'm new to Workflow Foundation. I've worked my way through one book (K. Scott Allen's Programming Windows Workflow Foundation) which was okay but I'm left with several questions. The biggest one is 'where do I put the data'?
Throughout the book he uses the idea of a Bug Tracking system; the scenario isn't too far from what I want to do. His examples use a simple Bug class with three properties and nothing else and he just makes it a field on his activities and passes it around where necessary. But in the real world a bug report would probably have lines of text that you'd want to be searchable; my scenario certainly does. If all of this text is squirrelled away by the persistence service, how do I get at it for text searches?
In the real world, what do you do with your data?
For simple keys or assciated foreign keys you can use the tracking service to store such key/value pairs in the database too and query them later by using the tracking information in the tracking tables.
For full text search you can store the data in additonal tables you are creating side-by-side to the original tables of the sql-persistence-service. You have to manually add and delete them in case of workflow ending or error.