I’m using JPA 2.1 and I have an entity object called Encounter that has one-to-one relationships with many other different objects of varying sizes (call them satellite objects). I would like these satellite objects to behave like value objects and be automatically replaced when a new instance of Encounter is saved. I have read many articles that show how to achieve this behavior by making the satellite objects embeddable objects instead of entities in a one-to-one relationship. That would work fine except that for any one “encounter” only a few of the large number satellite objects will be needed. Embedding them in a single table would waste a lot of table space and make the Encounter table more complex than necessary.
So is there a way to make an Entity in a one-to-one relationship behave like a value object without writing a lot of code to check if it exist, then delete it, then persist the new one?
Related
We develop the back office application with quite large Db.
It's not reasonable to load everything from DB to memory so when model's proprties are requested we read from DB (via EF)
But many of our UIs are just simple lists of entities with some (!) properties presented to the user.
For example, we just want to show Id, Title and Name.
And later when user select the item and want to perform some actions the whole object is needed. Now we have list of items stored in memory.
Some properties contain large textst, images or other data.
EF works with entities and reading a bunch of large objects degrades performance notably.
As far as I understand, the problem can be solved by creating lightweight entities and using them in appropriate context.
First.
I'm afraid that each view will make us create new LightweightEntity and we eventually will end with bloated object context.
Second. As the Model wraps EF we need to provide methods for various entities.
Third. ViewModels communicate and pass entities to each other.
So I'm stuck with all these considerations and need good architectural design advice.
Any ideas?
For images an large textst you may consider table splitting, which is commonly used to split a table in a lightweight entity and a "heavy" entity.
But I think what you call lightweight "entities" are data transfer objects (DTO's). These are not supplied by the context (so it won't get bloated) but by projection from entities, which is done in a repository or service.
For projection you can use AutoMapper, especially its newer feature that I describe here. This allows you to reduce the number of methods you need to provide "for various entities" (DTO's), because the type to project to can be given in a generic type parameter.
I hope someone can give me some guidance in how to best approach this situation.
I am using dbcontext, wpf and sql server.
I am having situations were the presentation of the data requires other data than just what is coming from a single table. For example, if I had a person table but wanted to show also how many books they had read from related data, say fields would be name, address, NoOfBooks.
I currently create a new class, called say PersonBookPM, that I fill up with data from a linq query which combines the two tables which includes the above three fields.I create an observablecollection of that and make that the itemssource of the grid/listbox.
When I am then adding data to that I then need to use the selecteditem, convert that back to the single entity of person, and attach it back in to the context.
It seems like the classes have already been defined by the code gen and I am repeating the process only slightly differently.
Am I going round the houses here?
Thanks Scott
My iPhone app has a summary page (UITableView) where I would like to show a quick overview and therefore I need to get info from several entities. It was suggested to create an abstract parent entity and have my two entities as children of this one. This do allow me to fetch the two entities using the one fetchedresultscontroller.
This works but I find that I need to filter the return a small bit. Because of the 'hack' above these entities have nothing in common so I need completely separate predicates.so from EntityA I would need "color = blue" and from EntityB "length >= 10". Because the entity I'm actually querying have none of these this doesn't work at all.
Is there a way to do this or what's the best approach here?
Niether the UITableView or the NSFetchedResultsController is designed to deal with more than one entity at a time. Moreover, it seldom makes any sense to try to do so. If you find yourself in such a situation, you probably need to rethink your data model design.
If entities are logically associated with each other then they should be linked by a relationship. If data from any two objects is to be displayed in the same tableviewCell without being gibberish then they must have some logical association and therefore should be linked by a relationship of some kind. To display in the table, you fetch one side of the relationship and then walk the relationship/s to find the other related objects.
If the logical association is strong, it should be defined as a formal relationship in the data model e.g.:
EntityA{
//... some attributes
b<-->B.a
}
EntityB{
//...some attributes
a<-->A.b
}
However, if the relationship is weak or transient, then you should use a fetched property to relate them. The fetched property dynamically searches for other entities based on a preprogrammed fetch.
EntityA{
creationDate:date
someBs--(creationDate=$FETCH_SOURCE.creationDate)-->B
}
EntityB{
creationDate:date
}
A key concept here is that Core Data is providing the entire model layer of your Model-View-Controller design. It is not just a dumb database but an active object graph that models both the data itself and its behavior. Once you have a properly designed data model, problems with the controllers and views resolve themselves automatically.
If i understand correctly, you can use notifications and send a dictionary of required information to the UITableView view controller class.
I have two objects, a Trip and a Place. A Trip represents a journey from one Place to another Place, ie. a Trip needs a fromPlace and a toPlace. So, this is a 1-to-2 relationship, but I need to know which is the "from" and which is the "to". I am not sure how to model this in Core Data. I have created two entities (Trip, Place), and now I want to setup the relationship(s) so I have a fromPlace and a toPlace. Do I need to add an extra field on the Place entity called isFrom, or similar?
If this was in a database, I would just have a id column on the Place table, and then two columns in the Trip table - fromPlaceId and toPlaceId. How do I achieve something similar in Core Data?
Do I need to add an extra field on the Place entity called isFrom, or similar?
Yes. It's better for you not to think of Core Data as a wrapper around a database; the database intuition sometimes gets in the way.
Don't first think in terms of database and then try to translate it into Core Data. While you're learning how to use Core Data, just think of it as a system of objects which can be saved into a file and persist between two launches of the app.
Then, from the point of view of object-oriented programming, you have a class Trip which has two instance variables fromPlace and toPlace of class Place.
You want to make it persist on a file. So you create an entity Trip which has two relations fromPlace and toPlace, both of which is of entity Place. That's it!
In more detail, fromPlace and toPlace in Trip are both to-one relationships. In Place, you make two to-many relationships, say tripsStartingHere and tripsEndingHere. Then you set tripsStartingHere as the inverse of fromPlace, and tripsEndingHere as the inverse of toPlace.
I'm trying to get a presentation model (discussed here and here) working in RIA. All the examples I can find are simple, flat data entities with no 1-many or many-many relationships, which are what I can't get working - specifically, on updates and inserts into associative relationships.
Queries I can get working fine - I have my presentation classes marked up with Association attributes (and Include attributes, where appropriate), and I have a good understanding about how data is loaded into the client side and maintained there as entities. I also have inserts of new entities covered. However, I'm experiencing the following problems. For the following examples, assume we have simple Album and Artist entities, where an Album has a single artist and an Artist can have zero to many albums. Both have a Name property.
On the client side, if I do myArtist.Albums.Add(anAlbum) or myArtist.Albums.Remove(anAlbum), nothing happens. HasChanges returns false. (Note that myArtist and anAlbum were obtained solely in code by loading the entities and iterating to get references to specific entities: I'm not doing anything in UI or with DomainDataSources yet, just dinking around).
If I update the Name on an Artist and SubmitChanges, when the Update method gets called on the server, the Albums collection is null.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or can you point me to an example that uses more complex objects?
EDIT (keeping the above for posterity): Alright, it appears that the second issue (a reference to an entity or a collection of entities showing as null when Update gets called on the server) exists because the child entites aren't marked as Changed and so they aren't being serialized and sent back. I know you can force that to happen by using [Composition] and I have gotten it to work that way, but this is not a compositional relationship and I want both entities to be "top-level" entities. How can I mark an entity as changed?
The problem was that my [Association] attributes weren't correctly defined. I didn't realize that the association's Name property has to be the same on both sides of the association. When the names are the same and you do a build, the generated code on the client uses a different constructor for the EntityCollection used by the "parent" to refer to the "children" than it does if the associations aren't set up right. The new constructor takes callbacks that do a little bit of extra handling when you call Add and Remove on the collection - specifically, they take the child entity you are adding or removing and modify the property on it that refers to its parent so that everything remains in sync: the collection you removed the object from, the collection you added it to, and the object's reference to its parent.