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
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 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.
I am having a model "Events" (Zend_Db_Table_Abstract) that's got various relationships to other models. Usually I think I would do something like this to find it and its relationships:
$events = new Events();
$event = $events->find($id)->current();
$eventsRelationship1 = $event->findDependentRowset('Relationship1');
As the relationship is already set up I am wondering if there's any sort of automatic join available or something. Every time I fetch my event I need to have all the relationships, too. Currently I see only two ways to achieve that:
Build the query myself, hard coded. Don't like this, because it's working around the already set up relationship and "model method convenience".
Fetch every related object with a single query. This one's ugly, too, as I have to trigger too many queries.
This goes even a step further when thinking about getting a set of multiple rows. For a single event I may query the database multiple times, but when fetching 100 rows joins are just elementary.
So, does anyone know a way to create joins by using those relationships or is there no other way than hardcoding the query?
Thanks in advance
Arne
The way to solve this challenge is to 'upgrade' your database access to use the dataMapper pattern.
You are essentially adding an extra layer between the model in your application an their representation in the db. This mapper layer allows you read/write data from different tables - rather than a direct link between one model and one table.
Here is a good tutorial to follow. (There are some bits you can skip - I left out all the getters and setters as its just me using the code).
It takes a little while to get your head round the way it works, when you've just been using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract, but it is worth it.
I can't seem to find any information in the documentation or via Google on this, but if there is something, a pointer to it would be great.
In my app, I have a Thing as a core data class. I intend to have that Thing contain many Items which has a bunch of fields in it, like order and created_date and so forth. However, there are a variety of Item types, each with their own set of fields. Ideally, I'd like to create several subclasses of Item, so that I can access all the items together in a single array or something.
In Rails, I'd use STI for this. Does Core Data support similar behaviour?
Thanks!
You can create an Item abstract entity and then have each of your unique items extend from it. Keep the relationship in the abstract so that your Thing can see all of them.
Be warned, however, that under the hood, all of those children will actually be put into a single wide table so you will need to test for performance considerations.
I'm working on my first app using Core Data and I need to assign a type (with an associated name attribute) to a couple of entities.
Below is my object model so far.
The room and item types will be updated from time to time over the network.
Is this the best way to implement this using Core Data? Thanks :)
Edit: To try to explain better: for example, rooms may be Bedrooms, Kitchens etc. Items can be Aircon, Security Camera etc. The only difference between the different room and item types is the name text. The list of valid name texts will be updated so I don't want to hard code it in the app. Also, the user can create multiple rooms and items of the same type, which is why they are numbered (roomNumber,itemNumber)
improved Core Data Model Image http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8458/picture6c.png
Nick, try and avoid the temptation of thinking of Core Data as a database. Design your model from the point of view looking at using the objects in your code.
i.e. your relationship properties are collections (or singluars) of the related thing.. you should rename the relationship JobLocation.JobLocationToRoom as just JobLocation.rooms
And yes, using Core Data will be quite straight forward, but it's hard to give you a definitive answer with such a vague question.
Perhaps my question wasn't clear, but I found the answer in the Apple iPhoneCoreDataRecipes demo code
The relationship I wanted to model is similar to Recipe -> RecipeType.
In addition to the other answers, you don't need to model separate ID attributes. Core Data managed objects automatically have managed object IDs that are handled for you entirely behind-the-scenes by the framework.