My iPhone app's core data model is changing and I have a custom mapping model and an NSEntityMigrationPolicy for one of my objects. However, I am worried that some of my users will have thousands of objects in their core data base, are there any best practices for either making the migration as efficient as possible, or conveying to the user what's going on when they load the new update which will try to migrate their data?
You need to warn the user that the app needs to update the data store and you should probably provide a "working" dialog so it doesn't look like the app has hung.
However, the migration is very efficient because it's really just changing the mapping on the store. It doesn't have to actual instantiate all the existing managed objects, it just changes the field names in the store. That can get complex itself in rare cases but most of the time it's barely noticeable.
Related
OK. I know that Entity Framework is ORM. We use it for mapping data from database to object model, and from objects to relational data. But where it fits in a context of persistance layer? Can we say that persistance layer is also Entity Framework?
I would say - No! There are a lot of articles about this topic. But in general you don't want your object-relational mapper to be data-persistent. In fact exactly the opposite, keeping it persistent ignorant you can benefit by using your data classes with different types of data providers such as relational databases, web services, XML files and what not.
To keep data persistence you may take advantage of different design patterns like Repository pattern and Unit Of Work so you can really decouple you business layer from your data layer.
Ok, to make myself clear since it's very difficult through comments, here's an update to what I wanted to explain. Please have in mind that this is just my interpretation, and the way I'm using EF, I've been using it in different projects (desktop and web) but it's not universal, but still covers a lot of the most common scenarios.
So since I'm a big fan of Code First I'll write from this prespective. The Database Model is where your entities lies. Later on based on those entities the EF will generate your database. So what is important on this stage of development - you want to have you database normalized and you want all navigation properties set correctly. Not so trivial tasks as it may seems but that it's, you just care about how efficient your database will be.
Now comes the tricky moment somehow you should deliver you data to the business layer and it's true - as far as we are talking only about data from a database using repository is very arguable. However even then the one advantage that you get when having this Repository between the data and the business logic is that you don't have to take in mind the business needs while creating the data model, and after that this doesn't make it any harder to use your data from inside the business layer even though what exactly will your front end looks like at the time you create the database model.
So at this point let's consider again the example case where in you Database Model you have those two entities - Customers and Orders. When a user log in into your application and wants to see his orders you need to join two tables in order to provide the front end the information that it needs. Option 1 - you don't have a Repository and you are using the DbContext directly from the method that returns the data. That means two things - you gonna have to write the same code everywhere you need to get this specific piece of information and 2 - if the business requirements change and in the same view that since now was used to show a customer and his orders now you have to show some additional info which is taken, let's say from a third table, then what happens - you have to go to each place where you use this view and change the way you retrieve the data. And option 2 - you have Repository, all your methods for accessing data are stored there and the Business Layer is completely ignorant about the way it get's the data, the Database Model is also ignorant about the needs of the business model which lead to loose coupling and only one place where you gonna have to make changes if you have to. In the scenario above, if you indeed use Repository and in your repository you have method called GetUserOrders() and inside this method you make the database call, the joins and so on, and all that the Business layer needs to do to get the data in the proper way is call this method when the requirements change and you have to include one more table, this time you don't have to look for all the places where you are using this data, you just have to modify one method and that's all.
It's pretty much the same logic on the way back. When you have some complex data returned from your front end and you want to save/update the old data with the new one, again - you can do it from the business layer but it leads to the same problem as when you have to get data, instead - you just pass the complex data to another Repository method which knows how to deal with it (say maybe some of the data should be saved directly into database and other should be used to feed a web service or whatever scenario comes to your mind) and here again - when something change, like - you want to use more heavily web services or the opposite, you want to migrate to more database centric design, all you have to do is change the method that takes care about the data the is concerned with this changes and nothing more.
So even though when I'm writing this I can see that DbContext can very well act as a repository and in this regard also as a data persistent layer, there are still some valid reason to not let this happen. Especially right now when the web services are more and more popular, WebAPI2 is out and RESTFull services are frequently used I think that leaving the EF as persistent ignorant as possible is the way to go.
But yet again, this is my opinion. There are a lot of articles on this topic so I urge you to google and read about it, since I think this is very important part form the architecture of every application.
P.S
In response to your comment which was written while I was writing my edited answer:
If I change data source I need to make changes in DAL anyway or in my example in repostitory. - the answer is yes. But there is no way tho change the data source without changing the DAL. The question is how easy will be to do that. I think the with what I've written already you can decide for yourself which way is better but just because I really think this is one of the few really strong arguments of leaving the EF persistent ignorant all write it again. When you have Repository and there are methods which take care for data manipulation, every time something related with the way the data is fetched affects only those methods and nothing else. If you use the context freely, in your business layer even a little change may cause you a lot of trouble just because it always possible to miss something, you have to go through the entire code to make sure that you have fixed all places and it's just not as efficient as having all in one place.
I am really confused on what the Core Data actually is. Or I guess my question is, when dealing with a database, would you use Core Data? Like if I wanted access values from a database would I be using Core Data to access those values? How would I approach this problem?
Thank you so much for the help.
Core Data is an framework that does the work of "object persistence". In other words, it's code you can use that takes care of saving a collection of objects to disk and loading them again later. It does a lot of work to allow you to store lots of data and load only the objects you need at a time, and unload ones when memory is tight.
Core Data can use a database to accomplish this, but that's it's business, not yours. When you use Core Data, it is a black box. You tell it to save the data and then step out of the way.
If you want to interact with an existing database, such as a MySQL database on a web server, that's a completely different matter. You might use Core Data to store local copies of objects on your device, but in that case Core Data won't care that the objects are copies from some other database. It doesn't care.
It is a convenient, native means of storing data in your iOS applications. Don't think of it as sqlite although you can view the files it creates with various sqlite tools. Instead think of it as a tool for manipulating an object graph of information important to your app.
I've used it in two main ways. First to store a bunch of static data that is important to an app, in one case that was a large amount of location data for an indoor mapping application. What arrived as a massive CSV file of waypoints was converted to core data. Core Data was incredibly useful for this because it allowed preparing a sqlite file which was shipped with the application containing all the infomation. Updates from a web service arrive as more CSV that is added to the Core Data to keep information current. At runtime the location information object (the waypoint a user is at) is retrieved with a predicate (i.e. the point they tapped on) and that object, through its Core Data relationships, indicates where it is possible to go from that point. Core Data provided the information necessary to perform A* routing through the indoor map.
Second it is great when you have a bunch of objects arriving as JSON and you want to be able to store and access those objects later. Let's say you have a typical app where you have a User and some information about the User, let's call it Thing. Users have Things. When you want to know something about a User you retrieve the Core Data record using a predicate - typically "name" or similar - and you get all the information you stored about the User back. Again you can make use of relationships to explore the user's connections and make displaying information easy. Perhaps the User has many Things, then you can say "user.things" and you get a NSSet of NSManagedObjects representing those Things.
You use it like a database. Its utility is that it is easy to access from anywhere in your iOS code, it is easy to store and easy to retrieve information also. Faulting lets you retrieve one object and navigate to any object connected through relationships by following the relationships. Because you define the attributes and relationships yourself in the data model editor it is easily customized for what you need to store. To me it is one of the most used and most useful parts of iOS.
When you want to automate display of information from Core Data you can use a NSFetchedResultsController to initiate a fetch and to respond through delegate methods to changes to the underlying data. If you set up a UITableView to use a NSFetchedResultsController as data source, you can have the table automatically update whenever the objects displayed in the cells changed. Very useful for apps where you periodically update information and want what is displayed to be kept current.
When your object model changes it is possible to maintain all of your existing information and migrate it to the new model. Core Data manages automatic (lightweight migration) when it can, or if you have made more radical changes you can supply rules to handle the migration.
The limitation of Core Data is that it is not great for storing binaries. If you have images that you need to store, far better to store a path to the location of the image than trying to store the actual data.
Yes, if you want a local database on your device, Core Data is the appropriate technology. It probably makes sense to start your research with the Core Data Programming Guide.
You can alternatively use SQLite (which Core Data uses in the backend), but Core Data offers some material advantages and is the preferred database interface for iOS. If you decide to pursue SQLite for any reason, though, I'd suggest you contemplate using the FMDB Objective-C SQLite wrapper.
But Core Data is generally the way to go.
I am planning to create an iphone app which uses CoreData. There might be enhancements added later as new versions of the app.
My question is;
When using CoreData, what are the factors to keep in mind to ensure if the user upgrades the version, his previous data remains intact ? Like I heard we should keep the.sqlite file name same. What are other factors to keep in mind while releasing Core Data apps?
Thank you.
Data migration concepts are important to understand if you're going to maintain it over time, since you're likely to want to change at least some things eventually.
The ideal is Lightweight Migration, where minor conversion from your old data model to your new one is automatic. As noted in the document, it can take care of itself if your changes are:
Simple addition of a new attribute
A non-optional attribute becoming optional
An optional attribute becoming non-optional, and defining a default value
Renaming an entity or an attribute is also easy and nearly automatic.
Everything beyond that -- new or removed entities, new or removed or changed relationships -- is hairier. It's not incredibly difficult, but it's definitely more work, with more room for failure.
As such, a little speculation about likely potential changes may make it easier and more efficient to provide a little wiggle room in advance. Obviously if you do too much, especially with theoretical-but-currently-unused relationships, you're likely slowing down the current system and potentially for no reason.
Worth consideration.
One thing we have done is to manage two separate core data databases.
First, a "read-only" core data database that gets supplied with app updates (assuming you want to be sending data with the app, if not then don't bother with this part).
Second, a local core data database (data store) that's stored on the phone that is initially populated with the data from the first, and then added to by the user or with updates from a server that you control. This second core data store can stay persistent between updates.
For later modification and updates you have two options. You can add additional features in a new core data store as long as you don't need to get at the new data at the same time as the old data. The other option is to use apple's core data migration stuff which you can read more about here.
Here are also some additional resources for gearing up with core data, there are plenty of more specific core data examples on SO.
Finally, if you plan on significantly adding/modifying your core data store I'd suggest looking into SQLite. That's easier to change with updates (in my experience) than migrating an existing core data store to a new schema, especially if the schema changes often.
I am developing an iPhone application that has a large database of items which the user can mark as favorite or add to certain lists.
Currently, the SQLite file is first copied from the bundle to the document directory to make it writable and used as a Core Data persistent store. However, I will run into problems when I need to deploy an application update down the track to add extra data or fix minor errors, where the user data will be lost or the application data needs to be synchronised.
After some research I found that perhaps I could add the application data as a read-only persistent store in the bundle and add a second writable persistent store to the documents directory for user data - Core Data would combine the data for me. But then I came across this in the documentation:
When you add stores, you specify the different store attributes by
configuration. When you are creating your configurations, though, remember
that you cannot create cross-store relationships.
I presume that means that I will not be able to maintain relationships between items and lists or items and a 'favorite' record. I guess I could go to the extra effort of traversing the relationship manually. Has anyone had experience with this?
Core Data provides an architecture to support versioning of managed object models and migration of data from one version to another. If your changes to the model are pretty simple, you can use "lightweight migrations", which are pretty easy.
Read more in Apple's documentation here: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreDataVersioning/Introduction/Introduction.html
I have an app developed for iPhone OS 2.x. For the obvious reasons, the model classes in that app were written without Core Data.
Now that 3.x is available, I'd like to know what are some of my options for taking my existing model classes and rebuilding them with Core Data. I do many things with my models besides the obvious, such as serializing them and storing them into an sqlite3 database so that my application can work when there isn't any network connectivity. I would expect Core Data to be able to help me with that as well.
Also, with the incorporation of Core Data in your application, is there any reason at all to still use sqlite3? Would you still use it for things such as providing for offline content, keeping around statistics that might not necessarily make sense to create a model out of? Or is there ways of incorporating all of that into Core Data as well?
The primary benefits I've found from using Core Data in my iPhone applications are:
Keeping referential integrity
Managed model migration on schema changes
providing an object relational mapping
Vastly simplified insertion and join and query process - joins for instance are typically just done through "dotted" syntax
Multiple store overlaying (although look for my stackoverflow question about this to see if it actually works on sqllite, still awaiting response...)
Structured predicate construction - you can create your predicates as objects instead of inline embedded sql statements
Reflective data store - you can introspect the data store at run time in a structured and statically analyzable way
That said, if your app already has been designed to work against a sqllite database, you really need to ask yourself if you're ready to convert your application over.
You will need to do at least these things:
Remodel your entire database schema in Core Data managed object models
Rewrite all of your database queries and management to use Core Data
Rewrite all of your models to either be backed by Core Data generated managed objects, or extending them
Import all of your existing data by hand into your Core Data database
Be prepared for potentially writing a lot more code! Although Core Data provides a good object framework for dealing with data store querying and management, it also does so at the expense of verbosity.
To continue the previous point, when you do even relatively minor changes to your schema, you're going to be prepared to spend a relatively significant amount of time providing a schema mapping and applying it correctly to your existing schemas.
Give you already have solved almost all of these issues already, the benefit you would get form porting an existing application to Core Data is elegance and keeping up with latest technology. You will have to provide a not insignificant amount of effort to get that, and given the benefits probably aren't stupendous, you might find it not really worth your while.
To answer your second question, I can't really think of any reason for using sqllite directly if you are using Core Data to be honest. I'm not certain that outer joins are terribly simple in Core Data for instance. However, you don't typically use Core Data in that manner - you would use it procedurally to craft the same effect as the outer join in SQL.
For statistics and stuff I would still use Core Data because it provides some fantastic aggregation functionality.
Note there is nothing preventing you from taking the opposite approach: adopt Core Data for extended functionality until you become comfortable enough with it, then begin porting your main applications existing code to use Core Data.
The other answer is very good, but I disagree on the benefits being mainly elegance and keeping up with technology... the real reason to move to Core Data is actually performance and memory related, in the Core Data manages caching very intelligently and you'd have to do a lot of work to replicate that. That to me is the sole reason to even consider it, as it is very verbose as noted and you also have to work around all data objects needing to use NSNumber to hold primitive values (which I find particularly annoying).
For something like your setup, the approach I'd probably take for migration is to have each model class hold on to managed objects that are actually the storage classes - then your whole code would not have to change, just some things in the model objects and possibly management classes you might have built to handle creation or population of the model objects. That even hides the NSNumber wrapped primitive issue.
If you are strongly considering working with Core Data, you may want to take a look at this book that covers the iPhone specific Core Data as well (including NSFetchedResultsController):
http://www.pragprog.com/titles/mzcd/core-data
You can buy an e-book only unlocked PDF version which is not too expensive...