I am trying Flutter in a small App for my company. I come from the C# world.
My Scenario
I get data from a server (json). The objects (possibly thousands of them) i get can have any number/type of properties, which are only known at runtime.
What am i looking for?
Basically i am looking for an alternative to C#'s DataSet in Flutter.
About DataSet the documentation says:
is an in-memory cache of data retrieved from a data source
What do i have so far?
I have looked through the web without finding anything that answers my question. The only approach i came up with was using a Map-like approach to store the json items, but i hope there is something else in Dart i can use since C# also has Dictionary, but DataSet is very rich compared to it, see the docu on DataSet...
NOTE: In C# i used to use also a Reflection-Emit approach to crate classes at runtime once i got the data, but since i am also developing for iOS, that approach is not allowed (JIT not allowed)
Related
So I have been doing lots of reading and found out NSCache is not persistent which is a slight problem for what I need to do. I have heard that I will need to use Core data instead... but I don't have any experience with core data so am wondering if its the only solution for persistent data.
The app will allow the user to search through a catalog, by typing in a search parameter in the code and select a distributor for their search parameter. What I want to do when the app loads is download the list of distributors and save them to a "cache" the will be persistent (till when the header I will make at some point changes and demands the app to update the cache), so that if the user turns the app of or the phone next time then open it the manufacture.
Now that I'm getting abit deeper into my app I'm getting abit lost in things for instance how would setting up a cache work with regards to NSURLConnection.
Any suggestions or code examples would be greatly appreciated..
This previous answer of mine might help you decide.
To sum it up:
If your data is small, static and low-complexity, use a collection class and write it to disk using the built-in class methods
If the data is static, low-complexity but large, SQL may be a good solution especially if you already know it.
If the data is dynamic and complex regardless of size, then Core Data is your best choice.
Viewed purely from the technical perspective, Core Data is always the best choice for iOS/MacOS API apps. Core Data is not just a persistence API, it is an API for creating the model layer of the Model-View-Controller design paradigm that the Apple API uses. It not only persist the data, but models it, validates its and provides an easy interface to the rest of the API.
If your going to be writing iOS apps, you need to eventually learn Core Data. However, it does have a learning curve and you should pick the method right now that will let you ship a usable app.
You can also check out sqlite. Here's another question that discusses getting started with sqlite on the phone: Where's the best SQLite 3 tutorial for iPhone-SDK?
The advantage to sqlite is that it is fairly easy to pick up. The downside is that you have to write queries for everything, and that can be a pain. It doesn't save objects, just data, numbers or text.
I have an app that connects to an API and retrieves a large number of small objects at a time. These objects are returned from json-framework as a heirarchy of NSDictionary, NSArray, etc. They are basic data types, and the primary structure of most of the api calls is a list of items(which could be hundreds of items long).
I will be displaying the data in a UITableView, but I don't want all the data in memory(as I could potentially eat it all up). I also don't want to hit up the api for the objects again, as they can be cached for a few hours without any problems.
I have thought of a couple of solutions, but I am eager to hear other options. I have thought of using Core Data in various ways, but I'd like to avoid having to create and maintain entities for each type of entity returned from the API. Using Core Data like this seems like overkill. I could use core data to store archived objects, though I worry about the archiving/de-archiving overhead.
I really want a generic store that can keep a list of objects cached, and then be able to retrieve arbitrary items from the list.
The factors that I care about:
Ease of maintenence. If the api changes or we add other objects, I don't want to have a lot of places in the code to change. Storing generic objects(NSCoding compliant) is ideal.
Performance. Caching and retrieval will all be happening while the user is interacting with the app(in the background), but I don't want to consume too many resources to make the app feel slow.
Are there any existing libraries that already exist for this purpose? What options am I missing? Maybe convince me that creating Core Data entities for each data type is actually a good idea for an object cache.
In case you haven't tried out the facebook/Three20 library, they have implemented a disc/memory cache and have used it as one of the fundamental layers inside their network module. I used three20 in my app but I never used this cache layer directly, so I'm not sure about the performance with it. Still, it's a nice thing to keep in mind.
Besides, the Enormego team has implemented a stand-alone photo viewer thing. And inside this photo viewer there is a nicely-working disc-memory cache. I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with the three20 cache. But I do believe it can cache generic objects other than just images. You can try it out by yourself.
I've been looking into creating a new application for iOS and after my last few apps I've been tempted to use CoreData (for benefits including saving and automatic undo/redo).
I've been a little confused when trying to implement the data-model I've been given fr the project though, since it seems that CoreData seems very much much closer to a database than a data model.
Should I be using CoreData for an application that doesn't generally fit the 'large amount of data/records' description I would generally use an SQL style database for?
If it helps, the app I'm designing will be a sort of document editor, so there will be a number of objects I will need to represent (there might be embedded images, graphs/charts, hyperlinks etc within the document) and I need to create this model from an xml description.
Most of these 'items' need to implement a set of interfaces (the model was created for a Java product; I'm having difficulties seeing how inheritance and abstract interfaces can apply to CoreData), and every example I've found so far seems to add base elements (like an NSDate or String) to a simple model.
Does this sound like a candidate for CoreData, or is CoreData more of a tool for implementing a database in an application? (i.e a library system/staff database).
consider CoreData as an option once you are able to properly write the majority of the code it will replace. so once you know how to properly serialize/deserialize, write undo/redo, KVO, copying, etc.
Should I be using CoreData for an
application that doesn't generally fit
the 'large amount of data/records'
description I would generally use an
SQL style database for?
CoreData isn't restricted to large databases (at all) - it will work well with small sets, and beyond databases (binary files and documents, direct in memory use of models).
your example could benefit from CoreData. it depends on the amount of custom code you need - sometimes it is just easier to write the code if you're just using CD objects as an interface generator, and your app uses a lot of custom code/objects. to be honest, i've never used CoreData in a shipping app - i always found reasons to migrate models to existing code before then (assuming CoreData was also used during development/modeling stages).
it's a nice framework, but it shouldn't be viewed as a 'magic object generator' that will solve most problems. first, you need to understand he technologies/patterns you intend to replace with it. there is a limited number of ideal uses for it. if you can't write the code the objects depend on, don't bother using CoreData. iow - don't consider it as a replacement for initial effort because there are certainly times when it is a good choice and a bad choice - but you can't make an objective answer for your context if you don't (truly) understand what it is capable of.
One of the purposes of Core Data is managing an object graph in memory. This certainly fits your application. It can then be persisted to disk easily. Using a tool such as mogenerator allows you to use Core Data to manage the object life cycle, graph and persistence, but add your custom protocols on top.
In short, yes, you can use Core Data for non-database uses, with a bit of work to conform to the model.
The question is rather simple. I know that there is SQLite. There is Core Data also. But I need something in between. More object-oriented than SQLite API and simplier than Core Data.
Main points are:
I need access to stored entities only by id. No queries required.
I need to store items of a single type, it means that I can use only one table if I choose SQLite.
I want automatic object-relational conversion. Or object-storage if the storage is not relational.
I can use object archiving, but I have to implement things (NSArchiver).
But I want to write some kind of class and get persistence automatically. As it can be done with Hibernate/ActiveRecord/Core Data/etc.
Thanks.
Everything you've said you want here is completely compatible with Core Data. Apple's giving you a solution that meets your stated needs exactly, so why are you trying to avoid it?
Beyond BNRPersistence, which Alex points out, I don't think you're going to find anything that maintains object relationships, yet is simpler than Core Data on the Cocoa platforms. An object wrapper around SQLite like FMDB still requires you to manage relationships in your own code.
Maintaining relationships between objects is a non-trivial task, which is why you see so few of these frameworks out there. Core Data gets it right for many people, so there isn't that much motivation among developers to build an alternative to Apple's solution. BNRPersistence was created out of Aaron Hillegass' long-time frustration with certain aspects of Core Data, but many people (like me) are perfectly happy with the way Core Data does what it does.
You might also want to look at Core Resource, a newer framework that provides some wrappers around Core Data to make common tasks easier.
You might consider a non-Objective-C approach to serializing objects, just as XML or JSON, where you don't have to write serialization code, if you don't want to, because the framework does it for you. For example, put your objects into a key-value attribute pairing with NSDictionary (via a wrapper class or whatever) that points to another record's id key, and then encode the mess with json-framework's JSONRepresentation call. You'd probably need to do your own relationship integrity tests, but voila, instant relational database.
Take a look at BNRPersistence.
I have an app developed for iPhone OS 2.x. For the obvious reasons, the model classes in that app were written without Core Data.
Now that 3.x is available, I'd like to know what are some of my options for taking my existing model classes and rebuilding them with Core Data. I do many things with my models besides the obvious, such as serializing them and storing them into an sqlite3 database so that my application can work when there isn't any network connectivity. I would expect Core Data to be able to help me with that as well.
Also, with the incorporation of Core Data in your application, is there any reason at all to still use sqlite3? Would you still use it for things such as providing for offline content, keeping around statistics that might not necessarily make sense to create a model out of? Or is there ways of incorporating all of that into Core Data as well?
The primary benefits I've found from using Core Data in my iPhone applications are:
Keeping referential integrity
Managed model migration on schema changes
providing an object relational mapping
Vastly simplified insertion and join and query process - joins for instance are typically just done through "dotted" syntax
Multiple store overlaying (although look for my stackoverflow question about this to see if it actually works on sqllite, still awaiting response...)
Structured predicate construction - you can create your predicates as objects instead of inline embedded sql statements
Reflective data store - you can introspect the data store at run time in a structured and statically analyzable way
That said, if your app already has been designed to work against a sqllite database, you really need to ask yourself if you're ready to convert your application over.
You will need to do at least these things:
Remodel your entire database schema in Core Data managed object models
Rewrite all of your database queries and management to use Core Data
Rewrite all of your models to either be backed by Core Data generated managed objects, or extending them
Import all of your existing data by hand into your Core Data database
Be prepared for potentially writing a lot more code! Although Core Data provides a good object framework for dealing with data store querying and management, it also does so at the expense of verbosity.
To continue the previous point, when you do even relatively minor changes to your schema, you're going to be prepared to spend a relatively significant amount of time providing a schema mapping and applying it correctly to your existing schemas.
Give you already have solved almost all of these issues already, the benefit you would get form porting an existing application to Core Data is elegance and keeping up with latest technology. You will have to provide a not insignificant amount of effort to get that, and given the benefits probably aren't stupendous, you might find it not really worth your while.
To answer your second question, I can't really think of any reason for using sqllite directly if you are using Core Data to be honest. I'm not certain that outer joins are terribly simple in Core Data for instance. However, you don't typically use Core Data in that manner - you would use it procedurally to craft the same effect as the outer join in SQL.
For statistics and stuff I would still use Core Data because it provides some fantastic aggregation functionality.
Note there is nothing preventing you from taking the opposite approach: adopt Core Data for extended functionality until you become comfortable enough with it, then begin porting your main applications existing code to use Core Data.
The other answer is very good, but I disagree on the benefits being mainly elegance and keeping up with technology... the real reason to move to Core Data is actually performance and memory related, in the Core Data manages caching very intelligently and you'd have to do a lot of work to replicate that. That to me is the sole reason to even consider it, as it is very verbose as noted and you also have to work around all data objects needing to use NSNumber to hold primitive values (which I find particularly annoying).
For something like your setup, the approach I'd probably take for migration is to have each model class hold on to managed objects that are actually the storage classes - then your whole code would not have to change, just some things in the model objects and possibly management classes you might have built to handle creation or population of the model objects. That even hides the NSNumber wrapped primitive issue.
If you are strongly considering working with Core Data, you may want to take a look at this book that covers the iPhone specific Core Data as well (including NSFetchedResultsController):
http://www.pragprog.com/titles/mzcd/core-data
You can buy an e-book only unlocked PDF version which is not too expensive...