I am using inheritance currently in EF and feel like it is causing more issues than it is helping, especially with binding an aggregation of tables to a datagrid. I have given a screen of part of the model. What I am trying to do is bind FREQUENCY to a datagrid, and have the grid fields be based on the type of FREQ_POOL(which is a base class). So for instance, if I want a POOL_IA datagrid, then it would have those fields, as well as the few fields in FREQUENCY. I was using inheritance because it made since from an OO perspective. The alternative is to just have lots of 0..1 relationships that show the ability for FREQ_POOL to have an extension, but then I have no constraint in place saying that FREQ_POOL can only be ONE type. What is a better design to accomplish this and make data binding easier? Thank you for any guidance.
One approach may be creating a data grid that gets the data from FREQ_POOL and then put all the variables of POOL_IA (or the all the properties of derived class using reflection) and FREQUENCY .
If you really don't need using objects while binding your data grid and able to use DataSet the another approach may be getting all the properties and the values of entry with Context.Entry method on the fly and put it into DataSet dynamically.
Related
I have a quick (hopefully) question on how to implement a composite field using MVVM.
I have 2 examples, one is on the sql end I am storing gps coordinates in the following manner "Latitude,Longitude" for instance "45.55555,-80.00000". the other example is storing feet and inches as a single double field with it being ft.in.
How should I go about this? Should I have two fields and in the model or Viewmodel composite them if the other piece exists? Should I bind them to the same field and somehow validate the sets?
thanks!
In the Model I normally use a structure/layout that is closest/easiest to the source so it can be easily/quickly read and written.
In the ViewModel I aim for a representation of the View to accommodate the bindings.
In general I make the ViewModel responsible for the transformation between the Model and ViewModel.
So whether or not a property of the ViewModel and the Model should have one field or two depends on the requirements of the View and the Source.
I think that I am using too much conditionals and calculations in the TT templates.
I am displaying a result set of items from DBIc. For each item I need to calculate things using the retrieved values, and the template doesn't seems to be the right place.
But in Catalyst it is a thick object that comes from DBIc.
So how can I move logic to the model? Must I run a whole loop for all items and change the object somehow?
Regards:
Migue,
First, you're on the right track by wanting to properly separate concerns. You'll thank yourself if you're the maintainer 6-12 months down the road.
IMHO, your Catalyst controllers should be as thin as possible with the business logic in the various models. This makes it easier to test because you don't have the overhead of Catalyst to deal with. I've been thinking about model separation quite a bit myself. There are two schools of thought I've come across:
1) Make your DBIx::Class Result classes have the business logic. This approach is convenient and simple.
2) Make a standalone Model which is instantiated by the Controller, and which has a DBIx::Class schema object. The model would use the DBIC schema to query the database, and then use the resulting data in its own business logic methods. This approach might be better if you have a lot of business logic since you separate DB access from business logic.
Personally, I've historically used approach #1 but I'm leaning towards #2 for larger apps.
Two possibilities.
Create a method in corresponding schema class.
(if 1 is not possible) Pass a callback to template that would have this object as argument.
You could
create a resultset that retrieves the data from the database and then calculates the needed values
if possible calculate the needed values within the database and then only retrieve the data needed for output
I personally would prefer the second one.
I hope that helps.
I am using EF 4.0, linq to entities, VS 2010 and SQL Server 2005 Stored Procedures to do a small search application. I have designed the EDM and the required layers. The presentation layer displays the search results properly.
The dilemma now is that the search should be flexible enough to read from different tables. For example, for the present search the application is reading from table A. Tomorrow the application may need to read from table B which may have totally different column names than table A.
Using EDM how can i map table A columns to Table B columns , without having any effect on the presentation layer.
Any suggestions/pointers/links would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much for your time and help.
I have used the Data Repository explained in the below link it shows the IDataRepositoryand the DataRepository class. also how you can fetch data dynamically using the fetch() and Find() functions
http://huyrua.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/entity-framework-4-poco-repository-and-specification-pattern/
and its working pretty fine
I would recommend decoupling your presentation layer from your data. Create a business layer with a generic class that can be populated from different tables (entities) depending on your needs.
So, depending on the day, the generic class (or classes) would be populated from Table A, or Table B, or table X. However your presentation layer would be oblivious to this and only aware the data from the generic class.
You could design this a number of ways. One way would be to design an interface that the entities must conform to in order to populate the generic class. So no matter what the table structure is, you would need to map the data in it to the interface in order to populate the generic class and hence display it as search results.
What is the best way to implement arbitrary row reordering in a tableview that uses core data? The approach that seems obvious to me is to add a rowOrder attribute of type Int16 to the entity that is being reordered in the tableview and manually iterate through the entity updating the rowOrder attributes of all the rows whenever the user finishes reordering.
That is an incredibly inelegant solution though. I'm hoping there is a better approach that doesn't require possibly hundreds of updates whenever the user reorders things.
If the ordering is something that the data model should modal and store, then the ordering should be part of the entity graph anyway.
A good, lightweight solution is to create an Order entity that has a one-to-one relationship to the actual entity being ordered. To make updating easy, create a linked-list like structure of the objects. Something like this:
Order{
order:int;
orderedObject<--(required,nullify)-->OrderObject.order
previous<--(optional,nullify)-->Order.next;
next<--(optional,nullify)-->Order.previous;
}
If you create a custom subclass, you can provide an insert method that inserts a new object in the chain and then sends a message down the next relationships and tells each object to increment its order by one then the message to its next. A delete method does the opposite. That makes the ordering integral to the model and nicely encapsulated. It's easy to make a base class for this so you can reuse it as needed.
The big advantage is that it only requires the small Order objects to be in alive in memory.
Edit:
Of course, you can extend this with another linked object to provide section information. Just relate that entity to the Order entity then provide the order number as the one in the section.
There is no better way and that is the accepted solution. Core Data does not have row ordering internally so you need to do it yourself. However it is really not a lot of code.
I would like to experimentally apply an aspect of encapsulation that I read about once, where an entity object includes domains for its attributes, e.g. for its CostCentre property, it contains the list of valid cost centres. This way, when I open an edit form for an Extension, I only need pass the form one Extension object, where I normally access a CostCentre object when initialising the form.
This also applies where I have a list of Extensions bound to a grid (telerik RadGrid), and I handle an edit command on the grid. I want to create an edit form and pass it an Extension object, where now I pass the edit form an ExtensionID and create my object in the form.
What I'm actually asking here is for pointers to guidance on doing this this way, or the 'proper' way of achieving something similar to what I have described here.
It would depend on your data source. If you are retrieving the list of Cost Centers from a database, that would be one approach. If it's a short list of predetermined values (like Yes/No/Maybe So) then property attributes might do the trick. If it needs to be more configurable per-environment, then IoC or the Provider pattern would be the best choice.
I think your problem is similar to a custom ad-hoc search page we did on a previous project. We decorated our entity classes and properties with attributes that contained some predetermined 'pointers' to the lookup value methods, and their relationships. Then we created a single custom UI control (like your edit page described in your post) which used these attributes to generate the drop down and auto-completion text box lists by dynamically generating a LINQ expression, then executing it at run-time based on whatever the user was doing.
This was accomplished with basically three moving parts: A) the attributes on the data access objects B) the 'attribute facade' methods at the middle-tier compiling and generation dynamic LINQ expressions and C) the custom UI control that called our middle-tier service methods.
Sometimes plans like these backfire, but in our case it worked great. Decorating our objects with attributes, then creating a single path of logic gave us just enough power to do what we needed to do while minimizing the amount of code required, and completely eliminated any boilerplate. However, this approach was not very configurable. By compiling these attributes into the code, we tightly coupled our application to the datasource. On this particular project it wasn't a big deal because it was a clients internal system and it fit the project timeline. However, on a "real product" implementing the logic with the Provider pattern or using something like the Castle Projects IoC would have allowed us the same power with a great deal more configurability. The downside of this is there is more to manage, and more that can go wrong with deployments, etc.