I have been tasked with fixing a number of bugs on existing application that makes use of JPA (EclipseLink).
In this application it common for there to be multiple entities that indirectly share the same table via SQL views. As an example, I might have a entity called TEmployeeInfo and another entity called VActiveEmployeeInfo. While the first maps to a table directly, the second maps to a view of the same table as the first.
This seems like it would cause issues with caching as any updates using the first entity (table) would not be immediately available in the second (view).
Are my suspicions correct?
If so, what are some possible steps to correct this short of refactoring a large portion of the application?
If the same rows are mapped twice, then the cache can become stale if the objects are updated. You can have both classes use the real table, or perhaps use inheritance.
Otherwise, you can disable the shared cache of this class.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/FAQ/How_to_disable_the_shared_cache%3F
Related
We have an entity and a corresponding table in the database with one additional column which contains digested hash of the entity fields, calculated each time programmatically in application. Entity has associations with two additional tables/entities which fields also take part in hashing.
Now a decision was made to get rid of one of the fields from the main entity (boolean flag) and exclude it from hashing, since it makes two otherwise identical entities get different hashes when one entity has its flag set to true, while other is false. Since hashes are different both entities get stored in the database, which is not what we want.
Removing the field is simple, but we also need to re-calculate hashes for entities which have been already stored in the database. Since there might be duplicates, we also need to get rid of one of two duplicated entries. This whole operation must be done once after migration.
The stack we use is Quarkus, Flyway, Hibernate with Panache, and PostgreSQL. I have tried to use Flyway callbacks with Event.AFTER_MIGRATE to get all existing entities from the db, but I can't use Panache since its not initialised yet by the time callback hits. Using plain java.sql.* Connection and Statement is pretty cumbersome, cause I need to fetch data from 3 tables, create entity from all of the fields, re-calculate hash and put it back, while taking care of possible conflicts. Another option would be to create a new REST API endpoint specifically for the job which the client will have to call after app has booted, but somehow I don't feel that that is the best solution.
How do you tackle this kind of a situation?
We are using Entity Framework 4 with the POCO Entity Generator. Until now we've just had one .edmx file but we're running into performance problems due to the current size of it (well over 100 entities).
I understand we should be looking to break this into a series of .edmx files which is fine with one exception. We would want to somehow share certain entity types across two or more of these contexts. For example a User class is associated with numerous otherwise unrelated entities throughout our model.
So is it possible to have, say, a security model with its own .edmx and namespace for generated POCOs, but use it in another .emdx? If not I'm concerned we'll have multiple classes modelling the same database table which will need to be updated in sync with the database. I'd say that would be unworkable. (We're using database-first).
Obviously if I'm barking up the wrong tree do let me know!
In theory you can have single POCO class used with multiple EDMX mappings because the mapping and class must match only in the name and name/types of properties. In practice this has some limitations. Just few I can think about:
You cannot use automatic code generators with this approach unless you modify generator for every EDMX and make sure that every entity will be generated by just single generator from single EDMX. This directly points to second limitation.
Entity must be exactly same in every EDMX. Including navigation properties. If it is not you will not be able to generate it at all without building your own code generation solution. What is worse if dynamic proxies demand that class with unique name is mapped only once. If you have two or more different mappings for the same class you will not be able to use dynamic proxies (lazy loading, dynamic change tracking) with only single mapping per application run.
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.
Lets say I have Customer, Order, OrderDetail classes in the business layer (It's a simplified version of my problem).
I have also an old (existing) database that has one global table where every row of the table contains the information of Customers-Orders-OrderDetails; for example:
CustomerID, CompanyName,Fax,OrderID, OrderDate,ProductID,UnitPrice,Quantity
(in this way there are duplicated information of a Customer in different rows).
In the future I'll have a new database (with different table Customers, Orders, OrderDetails), and I want to use the same program.
I want to use EF CodeFirst to mapping to the old database and in the future to the new database
Which is the best solution?
Design a business layer with a global class that contains the information of Customers-Orders-OrderDetails. So the mapping of this class
with the old database using EF4 in the data layer is trivial.
In the future I'll modify both business layer and data layer for the new database.
Design a business layer with Customers, Orders, OrderDetails classes. In this case is it possible to map these classes to the global table of the old database? How ? (the problem is that the Customer-Order is one to many).
In the future I'll modify only data layer for mapping the new database.
This will work for now and later you will have to modify everything working with a global class - it can be a lot of work.
It is not possible to map one table to three entities where two have one-to-many relation between them with EF.
Use third approach. Load one class as described in first approach but immediately convert result to three classes from the second approach. The reverse operation will be done in case of persisting changes. Wrap this code in single place - repository. Your application will use three classes and it will not have any knowledge about the way how they are persisted. Once you change the database you will only remove additional conversions from the repository and work directly with Customer, Order, OrderDetail loaded and persisted by EF.
I have an iPhone Core Data app with a pre-populated sqlite "baseline" database. Can I add a second smaller sqlite database with the same tables as my pre-populated "baseline" database but with additional / complementary data such that Core Data will happily union the data from both databases and, ultimately, present to me as if it was all a single data source?
Idea that I had is:
1) the "baseline" database never changes.
2) I can download the smaller "complementary" sqlite database for additional data as and when I need to (I'm assuming downloading sqlite database is allowed, please comment if otherwise).
3) Core Data is then able to union data from 1 & 2. I can then reference this unified data by calling my defined Core Data managed object model.
Hope this makes sense.
Thanks in advance.
Core Data is designed to handle multiple data files via the – addPersistentStoreWithType:configuration:URL:options:error: method. This will allow you to combine all of the data files together and then access them via a single NSManagedObjectContext.
Your only issue, and it may not even be an issue for you, is that the store files cannot directly reference each other. Therefore you will need to reference data between files "manually" via unique identifiers. However I suspect you are already aware of that limitation.
Manual Relationships
The idea is that when both objects in a "relationship" are in one model and one file, Core Data does its magic and handles all of the referential integrity for you. However when they are in different files and/or models this doesn't happen automatically anymore.
The solution to this issue is to use a fetched property that looks up some unique identifier to retrieve the entity (or entities) that you want to be on the other side of the relationship. This will give you a "weak" relationship between files.
One thing to note though when doing this. The fetched property does not get updated automatically when something changes. This means when data changes that would cause that relationship to change, your application will not be automatically made aware of it and you will need to request that property again to get the updated relationship information.
Hopefully that makes it a bit clearer.
Co-existance of fetched properties and relationships
They can definitely co-exist but realize that they are two separate properties. If you want your controller code to see them as one, then I would suggest building a subclass for that entity and then adding a convenience method in there that hits both the relationship and the fetched property and then rolls them up into one NSArray or NSSet before returning it back to your controller code.
You can attach the downloaded database with ATTACH DATABASE statement and operate with unions of tables.