In one application I am working on, I found that the JPA objects that are modified are not previouly loaded, I mean;
Instead of doing like this:
getEntityManager().find(Enterprise.class, idEnterprise);
//Some modifying operations
They do like this(and works!):
Enterprise obj = new Enterprise (IdEnterprise);
//Some modifying operations
getEntityManager().persist(obj);
This last solution doesnt load from database the object and it modifies the object correctly.
How is this possible?
Is a good practice? At least you avoid the query that loads from database, right?
Thanks
It depends. If you are writing code from a controller class (or any application code) you shouldn't be worried about jpa stuff, so the second approach is bad and redundant.
If, instead, you are working in infrastructure code, maybe you can manually persist you entities to enable some performance optimization or simply because you want the data to persist even if the transaction fails.
I strongly suspect the second bit of code is someone creating an entity from scratch, but mixing application, domain and infrastructure code in the same method: an extremely evil practice. (Very evil, darth father evil, never do that)
Related
So I have come across some code in the code base I'm working on.
We are using Automapper to map from domain objects (Poco/dto's) to Entity Framework Models. This is all good.
However in some of the mappers we have are using an implementation on ITypeConverter which is instantiated with a instance of our EF dbcontext. Which is used to look up things like IDs for a given string.
This feels like a code smell to me (but obviously my colleagues think it's cool).
Is it a good or bad idea to be accessing the DB inside a Automapper TypeConverter?
I have discovered one reason why it is a bad idea.
If one mapping makes a call tho the db, well you were going to have to make that call either way.
However if the mapper needs to map a collection of objects then the mapper is going to make N db calls. Which potentially be performed as a single call.
Working on a brand new project from the ground up. That means the data model is in a constant flux, doubly so because things are, inevitably, not as well planned as they should be. Model classes are being created and changed fairly regularly.
The plan was to use the latest version of EF with all the neat code-first stuff in it. But we're constantly tripping over the limitations the framework has in terms of adding or updating tables. The initialization options seem to allow only the complete deletion and re-creation of the database, which isn't really ideal.
I've had a look at the migrations. But this seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut: we don't need to detail every single small change and update with a new migration scaffold.
Are there some better strategies to deal with this? For instance, I started writing some unit tests to pre-populate one of the contexts with some test data, but because this causes the whole Db to drop and re-create, it causes problems with all the other contexts. Or perhaps making use of a custom initialiser to seed the data for us? How can we easily exclude these in production code?
We're also wondering about perhaps abandoning code-first and going back to EDMX diagrams. At least that way changes result in updated SQL commands which can be run directly against the database.
Any suggestions gratefully received.
I think, imho, that:
as the database schema must at least match your model you should/must detail every single change, and code first migration allows that and trace the changes over time
code first migration also allows to migrate the database schema for you
code first migration also allows you to produce sql that allows you to migrate the schema
For these reasons code first is as good (if not better) as the edmx approach
Please take few minutes to implement http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj591621.aspx
One other point, always imho and in a perfect world, if you unit test the business of you model you should not need the DAL, use generic collection. Be aware of different comportement of linq to object vs linq to entities, for example concerning the case sensitivity.
Let's say I have an entity called Product and this entity is loaded every time user hits the product information page. Usually I'd save the object in Zend_Cache (memcache) for an hour to avoid hitting the db for each request but as far as I understand that's not possible with Doctrine2 entities because of the Proxy objects.
So my question is, how can I avoid loading the same entity from the database for each request?
[EDIT]
I tried using Doctrine Cache like this
$categoryService = App_Service_Container::getService('\App\Service\Category');
$cache = $categoryService->getEm()->getConfiguration()->getResultCacheImpl();
$apple = $cache->fetch('apple');
But I get the following error
Warning: require(App/Entity/Proxy/_CG_/App/Entity/Category.php)
[function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory
in /opt/vhosts/app/price/library/Doctrine/Common/ClassLoader.php on
line 163
This is same for Zend Cache as well as you can't serialize the entity because of the Proxy class
You've got several options:
Use Doctrine's built-in result caching
Try just sticking entity in memcache via Zend_Cache. When you pull it out, you may need to merge() the Product back into the EM so proxies can be dereferenced. If you fetch-join any associations you need to display the product info, and you're only doing reads, this shoudl work fine.
Don't cache the entity at all. Cache whatever output you generate instead.
EDIT: If you don't care about the hydration overhead, you're using mysql, and your Products and associated tables don't change very often, you might prefer to just rely on the mySQL query cache. It's a fairly blunt object, but useful enough to mention.
You might want to try implementing __sleep or __wakeup methods for your entity class, as Doctrine 2 has special requirements and limitations concerning serialization/deserialization of entities (which is what happens when storing them in Zend_Cache).
There is this guidance.
General information about limitations including serialization.
I find this extremely strange since i just messed around with this myself and didn't have any issues with the proxy object being stored in the database. So im guessing your configuration is not setup 100% ?
If you find the issue with your configuration then be very aware of what timdev said you MUST merge the object back into the EntityManager else you will have weird bugs down the line.
A fourth solution available for you is also to retrieve the data as an array instead of an object, but then of course you lose all the functionality connected to your module which might not be exactly want you wanted.
It seems to me more like a configuration error. Either Proxies have not been generated or there is something wrong with the proxy directory and namespace.
Depending on your configuration, proxies can be either generated automatically or manually. Does your proxies have been indeed generated under App/Entity/Proxy ? Is this indeed the right directory?
FYI proxies can be manually generated by executing doctrine orm:generate-proxies <dest-dir>
Seconding what timdev says: Doctrine has built-in caching, you want to use it.
I also wonder from your question if you are experiencing any performance issues or if you are a victim of overly eager optimisation.
I know that core data should not be considered as ORM but it still offers the functionality that is similar to ORM. Just curious, is it implementing data mapper pattern? I know "The Data Mapper is a layer of software that separates the in-memory objects from the database. Its responsibility is to transfer data between the two and also to isolate them from each other." (Martin Fowler). IMHO context manager handles all SQL stuff into one transaction, so it's very performance wise design and IMHO core data might be considered implementing data mapper pattern.
One year latter, I will contribute with my two cents
I am not an ORM expert and just recently started something using a Data Mapper, but as a long time Core Data user I can say that no. The main objective of this pattern is having a clear cut of a domain object from all database related operations.
Once I start writing unit tests, the first thing I notice is that I must load a database, even if it is just some in memory store, but I do must load one. Also there are no mappers for each class, I have no control about how each relation is stored.
Core Data loads lots of meta information about your object graph and forces some structure to them. Although you can change the persistent store and bake something of your own, you will have lots of restrictions about how to do it, with a clear "relational" feeling to it.
The idea is good, we might say it is some variation of it. Something that I do love is that the save operation is done by the context, not the object itself. So there is some type of separation.
However look at those functions like "awakeFromFetch" or "didSave", both operations are related with the data store, not a plain domain object. A proper Data Mapper pattern would allow you to define those operations for each persistent store, not unified in a single object.
UPDATE:
Funny enough one day after my answer I had to deal with an old CoreData based project and must come back to improve this answer. To make things clear, I do consider that "seems like a pattern" is not enough. For example, implementation of the facade and adapter patterns is quite similar, but you name them differently depending on how you use them.
Is Core Data implementing data mapper?
I must say that my "not quite" should have been "definitely not!"
I have just been very angry because I needed to rename some fields and later add new ones. Although I do know quite well how auto-migrations work with Core Data I forgot how annoying these are.
How many times do you need some new field, rename something, experiment until you get it right.... and every single tiny change requires a full blown database migration? With Data Mappers this never happens because domain objects are perfectly decoupled. You only touch the database to catch up with the domain objects after you finish some new feature. Core Data forces you to bind at every single moment every single detail of your domain objects.
Boy, how sweet life was until I forgot that "tiny" annoyance of Core Data being the exact opposite of what you can achieve with data mappers.
Following the way Rob does it, I have the classes that are generated by the Linq to SQL wizard, and then a copy of those classes that are POCOs. In my repositories I return these POCOs rather than the Linq to SQL models:
return from c in DataContext.Customer
where c.ID == id
select new MyPocoModels.Customer { ID = c.ID, Name = c.Name }
I understand that the benefit of this is that the POCO models can be instantiated easier so this will make my code more testable.
I'm now moving from Linq to SQL over to Entity Framework and I'm about half way through an EF book. It seems there's a lot of goodness I'm going to lose out on by returning POCOs from my repositories rather than the EF entities.
I still haven't really embraced unit testing, so I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time creating these extra POCOs and writing the code to populate them, when all I appear to be gaining is testable code, yet I'm also gonna lose out on a lot of the benefits of the EF by not being able to track my objects.
Does anyone have any advice for a relative newb to all this ORM/Repository stuff?
Anthony
Another reason people don't like the auto-generated objects (in LINQ to SQL for example) is because of their built-in "magic".
Usually the magic is invisible and you never notice it, but when you try to do things like serialize one of those objects and then deserialize it (for example when using web services) its internal connection to the data source is broken and special hacks need to be employed to "put the magic back in".
With POCOs, you don't have to worry about those sorts of things and can get a better separation between your data and service layers. The downside of course is that you have to write lots of boring POCO -> magic object and magic object -> POCO conversion code. But in the end I think it's usually worth it, especially for large or complex projects.
The main reason is that a lot of people like to develop their model with a specific mindset: like DDD for instance. They might want to use a specific pattern (like Spec or State) for things like statuses (instead of enums) - or you might want to use a Factory for instantiation.
OO breaks when you try to use Tables as Objects when things get more complex. Simple sites work OK - but when you get to big big things, it gets ugly.
So - as always - it depends what you think your project will turn into.
My experience is that when you start writting some complex queries .Include method is worthless and you will find yourself either:
a) Writting a lot of queries to get the data you want or
b) abusing of annonymous types to load the data in a single query and then writting a lot of code just to pass that data to your entities.
POCOs are the way to go, IMHO.