I'm doing a project for my last year of university.
I have to make a commercial website using JHipster (in my case Angluar + Spring + PostgreSQL).
Using JDL, I figured out that abstract classes seems to not be supported, therefore it seems impossible to use inheritance. Do you know how to bypass this issue?
Here is the jdl : https://framabin.org/p/?0ec3f3890f12aded#Xum+8i00kbP8p2jGhIVSXgu3Twc8BdwJ5iJ5t6cM/7A=
As you found out there's no support for inheritance in JHipster generated entities, so either you code it manually using Hibernate strategies or by replacing inheritance by composition which is often a good idea.
You could also compose by using one-to-one relationships and using DTOs to present joined entities as a single object.
In any case, you'll probably going to modify substantially the generated views in Angular code.
Related
I'm new to the MVC way of developing applications and for the most part am enjoying. One thing I'm a bit confused about is the use of the Entity Framework. The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table. A couple of questions:
Why would I define a separate class file for a specific table if EF is building all of the classes that I need in the background?
From some of the validation approaches that I've seen, they want to define validation logic in the class related to a model for a table. If I'm using EF, will I have a .cs file describing the model and a .edmx describing that same table (in addition to its associated tables)?
If yes, how do you connect the .cs file to the .edmx definition so that CRUD flows easily from the EF?
Sorry if these seem like easy questions but I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around these fundamental concepts. Too many examples out there use only a single table where in my business, I NEVER write an application that uses a single table. There are always multiple tables in relation to each other with foreign keys. Thanks for your prompt responses.
For a tutorial that shows the use of partial classes -- in a Web Forms application but for MVC the same technique would be used -- see Adding Metadata to the Data Model in this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/web-forms/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef/the-entity-framework-and-aspnet-getting-started-part-8
From your comment "The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table." it sounds like you are familiar only with Database First and Model First -- for an introduction to Code First and an explanation of the differences, followed by a series of tutorials with an MVC example using Code First, see this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/creating-an-entity-framework-data-model-for-an-asp-net-mvc-application
Good questions, Darryl. Here are my responses to your bullet points:
Defining separate model classes that match the data models that EF creates is generally a good idea for the simple sake of separating your data access "stuff" from your business model objects that will get used throughout your app. Some people don't like this approach because it creates some amount of overhead when it comes to mapping your entities to POCOs but, if you use a tool such as AutoMapper, the overhead is minimal. The benefit lies in you creating a layer of separation between you and your (likely) evolving data model.
You could define validation logic in a buddy class (just a partial class that sits along-side your entity) but that would mean that you would be using that entity across your app and some would debate that that isn't the best idea. The alternative method, as mentioned above, is to create your own POCOs to mirror the entities that EF creates and place your validation attributes on the POCOs.
I mentioned this in the previous item but the way to do this would be to define buddy classes. Give EF buddy classes a Google and you should find plenty of examples on how to do that.
Just to add to all of this, if you choose to create POCO classes that mirror your EF entities, tools like AutoMapper can handle fairly complex relationships when it comes to mapping classes. So, if you have foreign key relationships in your data model, AutoMapper can understand that and map your POCO classes accordingly (i.e.: You have an entity that has a 1-to-many relationship and a POCO with a list of objects to mirror that relationship.)
I hope some of that helps...
Is it possible to auto generate the POCO classes and the mapping with the database defined separately using Fluent API (instead of annotations) for an existing database? Instead of coding all these entity classes manually, I find it easier if they are auto generated and then I can change them as required if the names are not incorrect (plural or singular) or the some of the relationships are not correctly mapped etc. This will save lot of time for me compared to coding all the entity classes and relationships from scratch and I am not that familiar with the fluent API syntax as well.
Yes, i encourage you to use Entity Framework Power Tools CTP1
Reverse Engineer Code First - Generates POCO classes, derived DbContext and Code First mapping for an existing database.
hope this helps
The Power tools are incredibly slow to generate files. It takes over an hour to work on my companies database (has a lot of tables).
Instead take a look at this visual studio extension http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/ee4fcff9-0c4c-4179-afd9-7a2fb90f5838
It generates cleaner code, WCF serialisation classes, and includes the database default constraints as part of the POCO ctor.
Disclaimer: I should mention that I am the author of this extension
We are in a process of designing an application with approx 100 tables and complicated business logic. Windows Forms will be used on the client side and WCF services with MSSQL on the server.
Custom DTOs are used for client-server communication, business entities are not distributed.
Which variant of Entity Framework to use (and why):
EF 4.0 EntityObjects
EF 4.0 POCO
EF 4.1 DbContext
Something else
Database-first approach is a requirement.
Also, is it worth implementing a Repository pattern? It seems a bit redundant, as there is one level of abstraction in the mapping itself and another one in the use of DTOs. I'm currently leaned towards using auto-generated extendable repositories for each entity returning IQueryable, just to have a place to put common queries, but still allowing querying entity model directly from the Service Layer.
Which variant to use? Basically once you have custom DTO the only question is do you want to have control over entities code (their base class) and make them independent on EF? Do you want to use code first? If the answers to all questions are no then you can use EntityObjects. If you want to have entities persistence ignorant or use custom base class you should go to POCO. If you want to use code first or new DbContext API you will need EF 4.1. Some related topics:
EF 4.1 Code-first vs Model/Database-first
EF POCO code only VS EF POCO with Entity Data Model (this was related to CTP)
ADO.NET DbContext Generator vs. ADO.NET POCO Entity Generator
EF Model First or Code First Approach?
There are more things to consider when designing service layer. You should be aware of complications you will have to deal with when using EF in WCF. Your service will provide data to WinForms application and it will work with them in "detached mode". Once user will do all changes he wants to do he will post data back to the service. But here comes the problem - you must tell EF what has changed. If you for example allow user to change order with all its order items (change quantity in items, add new items, delete some items) you must say EF exactly what has changed, what was added and what was deleted. That is easy when you work with single entity but once you allow user to change object graph (especially many-to-many relations) then it is quite tough. The most common solution is loading the whole graph and merge the state from incoming DTOs to loaded and attached graph. Other solution is using Self tracking entities instead of EntityObjects/POCOs + DTOs.
When discussing repositories I would refer you to this answer which refers many other answers discussing repositories, their possible redundancy and possible mistakes when using them just to make your code testable. Generally each layer should be added only if there is real need for the layer - due to better separation of concerns.
The main advantage of POCOs is that those classes can be your DTOs, so if you've already got custom DTOs that you're using, POCO seems a bit redundant. However, there are some other advantages which may or may not have value to you, since you didn't mention unit testing as a requirement. If you plan to write unit tests, then POCO is still the way to go. You probably won't notice much difference between 4.0 POCO and 4.1 since you won't be using the code-first feature (disclaimer: I've only used 4.0 POCO, so I'm not intimately familiar with any minor differences between the two, but they seem to be more or less the same--basically I was already using POCO in 4.0 and haven't seen anything that's made me want to update everything to use 4.1).
Also, depending on whether you plan to unit-test this layer, there's still value in implementing the repository/unit of work patterns when using Entity Framework. It serves to abstract away the data access logic (the context), not the entities themselves, and allows you to do things like mocking your context in unit tests. What I do is copy the T4 template for my context and use it to create the interface, then edit the T4 template for the context and have it implement that interface and use IObjectSet<T> instead of ObjectSet<T>. So instead of:
public class MyEntitiesContext
{
public ObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities
...
}
I end up with:
public interface IMyEntitiesContext
{
public IObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities;
}
and
public class MyEntitiesContext : IMyEntitiesContext
{
public IObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities
...
}
So I guess it really comes down to whether or not you plan to write unit tests for this layer. If you won't be doing anything that would require mocking out your context for testing, then the easiest thing to use would probably be 4.0 EntityObjects, since you aren't planning to pass your entities between layers and it would require the least effort to implement. If you plan to use mocking, then you'll probably want to use POCO and implement repository/unit of work.
I have now decided to try out ASP.NET MVC 3.
My host provider, however, only supports MySQL and therefore I have to figure out how to use MVC 3 with MySQL.
I have also decided that I don't wanna do any SQL code if I can avoid it, and I would also like O/RM without too much effort. I understand that the Entity Framework will actually help me accomplish this to a large extent.
I have been trying to get into the various ways of using the EF, with the database first, model first and code first approaches supplied by the framework.
So far, I have not had much luck, and I find that the examples available all use very different approaches that confuses me a lot.
I might begin by asking for guidance on getting a few concepts right.
First of all, the Model (in MVC) is actually more like a ViewModel, that represents something (Users, Posts, etc.) in terms of Properties is more or less simple classes. I.e. the model is where the data from the database gets mapped to an object (the O/RM). Am I right?
A repository is a wrapper that encapsulates a specific way of retrieving data for the models. For instance, a DatabaseRepository or a FakeTestRepository.
Should I have a single repository in my MVC project, or a repository per database table, such that I have a UsersRepository and PostsRepository?
Should the repository be a model for itself, not a model at all, or tied to individual models (so that UsersRepository is part of the UsersModel)?
I have tried to use the EF's model first approach, and for a simple test I just have created an empty model and added the entities "Author" and "Guide" that are related by a one-to-many relation.
When I then, in Visual Studio 2010, "Generate database from model", I get the corresponding sql code. I want this database to be created in MySQL. How can I accomplish that?
Are there some code examples for MVC 3 with MySQL and O/RM where the creation of a small site is demonstrated?
Thanks.
Concerning EF Model First approach: take a look at this Tips & Tricks article. We have described this common situation in it (it is Oracle-specific, but dotConnect for MySQL contains the "Devart SSDLToMySQL.tt" template).
As for the rest of the questions - there is no definite answer. Choose the approach that suits you better.
In my point of view, you should try the code first. And as you said that your host only provides MySQL you can also use MySQL database as a database I personally use MySQL. Concepts are the same but logic is different you have to code it a different way. But from my point of view, you can use MySQL as a database service.
HI,
I'm a bit lost with Entity Framework ...
Here is the context : Desktop Application (C# / Winform)
VS 2010 (SP1), SQL COMPACT (4.0 for identity), ... for now EF 4 (default version)
I've just started a new app and i've thinking of using EF because it seems that it's a quickest way to design both model and database (i know that it's not the best way but my project is not critical).
building the model with graphic designer is very convenient, i can easyly build the sql compact schema' and i can access model class directly.
But i need to add some feature to my model class (overriding ToString for example or some basics functions), so it seem that i need to make POCO classes.
But the problem is after generating these classes, how can i update these without losing added code , what's the best way to doing that ? partial class ?
Moreover, it seem that EF dev are focusing on Code First, so does it mean that Entity Model are already deprecated ?
EF generates partial classes, so you are right - in order not to lose the extra code you add, you need to create separate files and use the partial class feature. Those files won't be re-written once the model is saved.
Moreover, it seem that EF dev are
focusing on Code First, so does it
mean that Entity Model are already
deprecated ?
No, it's not deprecated. Using Code First is just a matter of preference, but you can feel free to use the EDM - it's not going anywhere.