I am looking to upgrade an existing perl web-based application and wondering if there are any suggestions on how to solve a particular problem:
The application is used by several clients who each have a very customized dataset behind the scenes. There is very little overlap in the dataset between clients. However, they all load and use the same software. There are numerous configuration files that tell the software how to process this client and understand it's customized dataset.
In essence, there are common functions but different datasets that those functions work upon. I'm looking for a way to abstract the datasets into an ORM. However, most ORMs seem to expect a common dataset behind the scenes. I need to either load the ORM modules dynamically based on the client being used or dynamically create the ORM structure based on the same.
e.g.
The software provides View/Edit/Delete functionality but
Client A
Manages tables
Client B
Manages automobiles
The View function loads configuration files and has custom template files for each client that are relevant to the type of data they are managing.
Any suggestions?
Check out Jorge
See Rose::DB::Object (RDBO).
It support's loading the database structure at runtime by its Loader package. John Siracusa, the author of RDBO is always kindly responding to question in #rdbo on irc.perl.org or the mailing list.
It's also very fast (once loaded) and powerful. I can really recommend it if you have a DB application more complex than any example app.
Related
I am developing a new project with spring boot and graphql. I am confused on how to proceed because there are 2 ways to develop it, one is via the graphqls file and Annotation based approach. I prefer Annotation based approach but are they stable. exmaple : https://github.com/leangen/graphql-spqr.
I second AllirionX's answer and just want to add a few details.
Firstly, to answer your question: yes, SPQR has been pretty stable for quite a while now. Many teams are successfully using it in production. The only reason it is still in 0.X versions is the lack of documentation, but an occasional small breaking change in the API does occur.
Secondly, I'd also like to add that going code-first doesn't mean you can't also go contract-first. In fact, I'd argue you should still develop in that style. The only difference is that you get to write your contracts as Java interfaces instead of a new language.
As I highlight in SPQR's README:
Note that developing in the code-first style is still effectively
schema-first, the difference is that you develop your schema not in
yet another language, but in Java, with your IDE, the compiler and all
your tools helping you. Breaking changes to the schema mean the
compilation will fail. No need for linters or other fragile hacks.
So whether the API (as described by the interfaces) changes as the other code changes is entirely up to you. And if you need the SDL for any reason, it can always be generated from the executable schema or the introspection result.
I don't think there is a good or a bad answer to the "how to proceed" question.
There are two different approaches to build your graphql server (with graphl-java, graphql-java-tools, graphql-spqr), and each method has its advantages and inconvenients. All those library propose a springboot starter. Note that I never used graphql-spqr.
Schema first (with graphql-java or graphql-java-tools)
In this approach you first create a SDL file. The graphql library will parse it, and "all" you have to do is wire each graphql type to its data fetcher. The graphql-java-tools can even do the wiring for you.
Advantage
no need to enter into the detail of how the Graphql schema is built server side
you have a nice graphqls schema file that can be read and used by a client, easying the charge of building a graphql client
you actually define your api first (SDL schema): changing the implementation of the api will not require any change client side
Inconvenient
no compile-time check. If something is not wired properly, an exception will be thrown at runtime. But this can be negated by using graphql-java-codegen that will generate for you the java classes and interfaces for your graphql types, unions, queries, enums, etc.
if using graphql-java (no auto wiring), I felt I had to write long boring data fetchers. So I switched to graphql-java-tools.
Code first (with graphql-java or grapqhl-java-tools or graphql-spqr)
The graphql schema is built programmatically (through annotation with graphql-spqr or by building a GraphQLSchema object in graphql-java)
Advantage
compile-time check
no need to maintain both the SDL and the Domain class
Inconvenient
as your schema is generated from your code base, changing your code base will change the api, which might not be great for the clients depending on it.
This is my opinion on those different framework and I would be happy to be shown that I am in the wrong. The ultimate decision depends on your project: the size, if there is an existing code base, etc.
I am looking for an easy-to-implement solution for form-based ontology editing and I wonder if there are any active projects and which of them is the right path to follow.
I need to create instances of an ontology (lets call it ontology A) using forms (either web or desktop) and store them in a triple store (e.g. Virtuoso). I would like to hide as much details as possible regarding the ontological relationships between the entities defined in ontology A and provide a plain simple user interface for CRUD (Create-Retrieve-Update-Delete) operations based on the entity schema defined in ontology A.
For example, I have found two possible solutions in the protege ecosystem:
PropertyFormPortlet It is not a live feature in the current webprotege version.
facsimile project
As described in the respective paper this is a solution that has been implemented for a specific context. Therefore, adapting it to another domain would not be as straightforward as I would like.
I wonder, is there another solution (even out of the protege ecosystem) that could facilitate such a form-based ontology editing. Could somebody provide some guidance?
Just in case someone lands in this question, I write down my conclusions. Practically, none of which I tried worked, but still I found out some interesting things.
OpenLink Structured Data Editor:
OSDE is a browser plugin which aims at populating RDF graphs in the form of files, based on Linked Vocabularies. In my case it didn't work as my locally hosted ontology cannot play the role of a "Linked Vocabulary". However, OpenLink team said they will work on it.
OData2SPARQL:
In our test, the WebIDE did not manage to create the forms out of the box as suggested by the respective video tutorial. However, we managed to use OpenUI library as a client of the OData services automatically created by OData2SPARQL, providing a web service interface for our ontology.
Ontowiki:
In our test environment, OntoWiki partially worked. We could save data but there were some bugs when trying to add properties etc. OntoWiki developers said that they plan to refactor in order to actively support it in newer hosting settings, but this is not the case right now.
[Pre]
I have to say that I'm dummy newbie who is trying to get together important puzzles with such crucial details as DDD, TDD, MVVM, and EFCore. I have an about 10 years of windows form develop experience in complete wrong manner, and after I'm joined to Plurasight I'm understood that I'm just lost my last 10 years, and this is really sad :).
[Problem description]
I have an App that i want to re-write from scratch by using latest and greatest technics that've learned for the last 6 month on Pluralsight, but the problem is that these new knowledge’s is stopping me, because simply I'm afraid that I'll do it wrong again...(that is stupid I know, but it is what it is).
So back to my questions, I have a big problem domain, and pretty well documented business logic, which i have to turn in to the code. I'm understand that my start point is design data layer, for these purposes I want to use Entity framework core (I saw Julie Lerman's course on Pluralsight and I think's she is amazing and inspires me to use EFCore as ORM for my app). But at the same time leakage of experience produces more questions than what I’ve learned with Pluralsight, and I will try to write them all(please don’t judge me too hard)
It is looks like that I will need 2 or even more data model projects in my solution, and here is why I have multiple document set types, each of the type contain more than one reference books used to generate unique file names and data sheets. But it looks weird to me have 3 Data model projects such as MyApp.PackType1.DataModel, MyApp.PackType2.DataModel, and each of them will be preinstalled with the EFCore, and each of them will generates its own database based on Data Context defined by EF. Isn’t it very redundant or this is correct way?
I don’t understand how to join these multiple Data Models projects, including Shared Kernel into the one nice model
I don’t understand what is the best way to design my data classes? Should they be just POCO’s or I can design them as nice looking classes with the private var’s and public properties? What are the best practices in here?
Also I don’t understand what is the best practice to use a MVVM pattern on top of that, and is it applicable at all to use MVVM in this case?
Should I keep my Tests in separate projects like MyApp.PackType1.DataModel.Tests, or keep them in same project?
Best regards,
Maks!
P.S.
Apologize for unclear definitions and questions, English isn't my native language.
It's very complicated to answer your question because you have asked for a lot of details, but I going to provide a brief answer and I hope it will be helpful.
You can have only one model for your entities (DDD) and create sub model from this model in your end level projects (Web API or UI)
Read point #1
You have to create an Entity Layer project that represents your database and then you can create DTO's for specific scenarios
From my point of view, use Angular but you can use another UI framework such as React or VueJs, but I prefer to use Angular to build UI interfaces and consume .NET Core Web API from client
Create unit tests and integration tests for you Web API projects and as additional feature you can use Db in memory provider for tests
May be this guide is useful: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1160586/Entity-Framework-Core-for-Enterprise
Regards
Hm, multiple DbContexts (models) usually come about when you have distinct databases you are using. General rule is one Context = one Database. Exceptions can occur when there are a lot of tables that can be grouped functionally, but there are downsides to that approach.
A DbContext is a repository pattern but for individual tables. Using a Unit of Work pattern and layering with a custom repository provider would allow you to make it "appear" as a single database, hiding the complexity from the front-end.
Your entity descriptions are usually created as straight POCO. You can get creative with different DTOs
In a nutshell, an MVVM pattern goes like this:
Request from UI to a controller
Controller possibly issues multiple calls to Data Layer to gather data
Assemble data in a single ViewModel (everything the page needs)
Return to UI
The beauty of the approach is single roundtrip (request/response) to the UI
Separate Project in my opinion. There are techniques to spoof the database connection using EF so you are not using "live" data.
That CodeProject article will come in handy.
I developed a REST API with Play 2.2.0. Some controllers expose GET methods, other expose POST methods with authentication etc...
I developed the client using Play as well but I have a problem. How can I avoid duplicating the model layer between both applications ?
In the server application, I have a Model Country(code, name).
In the client I am able to list countries and create new ones.
Currently, I have a class Country in both sides. When I get countries I deserialize them. The problem is that if I add a field in Country in the server, I have to maintain the client as well.
How can I share the Country entity between applications ?
PS : I don't want to create a dependency between the API and the client, as the client could have been developed with another language or framework
Thanks
This is not very specific to play framework but is more of a general question. You either create reusable representations of the data in your protocol (the actual data structures you send between your nodes) and get a tight coupling in representation and language. Many projects does it like this, since they know they will have the same platform throghout their architecture.
The other option is to duplicate all of or only the parts of parsing/generating that each part of the architecture needs, this way you get a looser coupling and can use any language in the different parts.
There are also some data protocols/tools that will have a representation in a protocol specific way and then can generate representations in various programming languages.
So as you see, it's all about pros and cons - neither solution is "the right way (tm)" to do this, you will have to think about your specific system/architecture and what pros are most valuable and what cons are most costly to you.
Well I suggest to send to the client a template of what they should display, on the client with js take advantage of js template frameworks, so you can tell to the client how can show them, dynamic... if they want to override them well... more job
We can call them Rest component oriented...
well suggestions :)
should works!
How should the configuration for an IoC container be organized? I know that registering by code should be placed at the highest level in an application, but what if an application had hundreds of dependencies that need to be registered? Same with XML configurations. I know that you can split up the XML configurations into multiple files, but that would seem like it would become a maintenance hassle if someone had to dig through multiple XML files.
Are there any best practices for organizing the registration of dependencies? From all the videos and tutorials that I've seen, the code used in the demo were simple enough to place in a single location. I have yet to come across a sample application that utilizes a large number of dependencies.
Autofac and others (eg Ninject) employ a module concept for this exact purpose. http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/StructuringWithModules may be what you're looking for.
Hth
Nick
It would help a little if we knew if you were talking about any particular IoC Container.
Windsor, for example, allows you to define dependencies across a wide range of XML files (organised however you want), and simply included in the configuration. The structure should be in a format that makes sense. Have a file/folder for Controllers, Facilities, etc etc. A heirarchy of related items.
With something more code-oriented, such as Autofac, you could easily create a host of container configuration providers to power your configuration. With Hiro, you don't really need to do much configuration at all.
Regardless of the container used, they all provide facilites for convention-over-configuration based registrations, so that should be your first stop in cleaning up registrations. A great example would be to register all classes whose name ends in 'Controller' in an MVC application.