I am trying to figure out if it is correct to put in the fields of the particular class a reference to an object/collection that this class is related with.
Let's say I have a class University that aggregates many instances of Student class. When I put on my diagram both classes, I add the relationship of aggregation between them.
And now the question: Can I add in University a field like 'students : Student[]'? Do I have to? Or maybe I must not?
Thanks in advance,
Piotr
Attributes own association properties in UML 2. This is new and it is not always easy to understand the concept. I didn't understand why we need an attribute till I have seen the following demo.
The golden rule is that attributes should be created in order to save association information in the model. I have found an interesting teaching session on association and aggregation in UML 2.
It is a 2m30s flash demo
http://www.download-omondo.com/AggregationAndComposition.swf
The above association creation is for expert level, I mean modeler who wants clean design and clean model as well as perfect metamodel. If you don't care then just create an association at model level and it would do the job but the code generation will not be done. It means that mappings for database will needed to be created at code level later by developers.
To understand the difference between both kinds of associations see this other flash demo at: http://www.download-omondo.com/association.swf
It depends on what you are doing with your model, but generally, you shouldn't have to use an attribute for this, you can use an association instead. Associations are able to contain more information that attributes, such as whether they are composite or shared, which ends are navigable, multiplicity on each end, named endpoints, etc.
One benefit of associations is that one association can actually represent a property on each class it is connected to, while an attribute only represents a property on the class it belongs to.
So, in your case, University has Students, so you'd draw an association from University to Student, naming each endpoint and setting the multiplicity correctly.
Now when you go to generate code from your model, just be sure to take into account associations as well as attributes. This way you won't need to add the properties both as attributes and associations, just as associations. I have a few diagrams I've tested this approach with, generating sql and php code from the xmi via an xsl transform, and it works quite well... if you'd like more details I can dig it up.
There are 3 types of relations : association, aggregation and composition. composition is a specialization of aggregation, aggregation is a specialization of association.
Using one or the other depends on the phase of your analysis. You could just use association in first draft and then refine it later to aggregation or composition, the difference with aggregation is that a student had no meaning out of one University Universe. If there are several universities instances, it would be aggregation rather.
If you use relations, there's no need to and you shouldn't add students[] because it is redundant. And if you do that you lose the semantics of the 3 types of relations.
Related
I have an ERD Diagram of an E-commerce with the following entities Product , Tag , ProductTag,Category and other entities of course.
I tried to convert it into class diagram as follows:
1- removed the id
2- converted the foreign key into object of the type i'm refering to(product_id converted into => product: Product)
my question is , is this good approach to follow on all my entities? does it like achieve the SOLID principle? I have a presentation in 2 days and I want to be very sure of what I have made , any comment or modification would be really enough .I also chose these tables because they represent one to many and many to many. thanks in advance.
Basically your approach is correct. It's just a couple of UML specifications you got wrong.
The label in the middle of the connectors is just the name of the connector. Unless you do some OCL wizardry this name is meaningless. There is a way to adorn it with a black triangle to show the reading direction. This sometimes helps business people to understand how classes are related to each other (see Fig. 11.27 on p. 202 of UML 2.5). But usually you would not use it.
The shared aggregation has no semantics (p. 110 of UML: Indicates that the Property has shared aggregation semantics. Precise semantics of shared aggregation varies by application area and modeler.). So leave the open diamond away. Composite (filled diamond) can be used to show responsibility (when I'm killed I will kill my composites first). Usually it adds too little to be really useful, it only heats up the futile composition-discussion.
The navigation-direction is incorrect. The AC in the middle sees both connected classes so it's shown without any arrow. If you have an additional (directed) association you place it as lone (extra) connector. In that case put role names towards any end. That makes navigation clearer than just a simple arrow. I for myself use arrows only on rough sketches on the drawing board.
P.S. Just noticing that you have operations in your classes that have the same name as the class and take one paramter being also the class. I would guess you intend to show a constructor here. In that case you would make it Classname():Classname and provide only the paramaters that are needed for the constructor. Else these opreations don't seem to make much sense. Similarly the CRUD operations seem to work on a list of 'itself' which is also probably not desired. You would have a collection class which handles the base class where these operation make sense. So to summarize: you would only add getter/setter operations for the (private) properties matching the columns from your table.
P.P.S.: As per Christophe's comment it's a good idea to adorn the class instantiation operation with a <<create>> stereotype which highlights its purpose. See p. 196 of UML 2.5:
This stereotype is part of the standard (see p. 677) and the table on p. 678 states:
Specifies that the designated feature creates an instance of the classifier to which the feature is attached.
On the modeling part of your question, there’s already a perfect answer. For the records, I’d nevertheless like to add a complementary answer on the SOLID part:
Single responsibility: your classes have more than one reason to change, because you may want to change Product for what it is (e.g. add more product-related attributes), but you may also want to change the class to add new getByXxx() operations to find products in the database based on other criteria, independently of what a product really is. SO it's not complying.
Open-closed principle: we cannot tell
Liskov substitution principle: in absence of inheritance, this is not relevant. Moreover, you couldn't tell without having precondition, postcondition and invariant constraints.
Interface segregation principe: is probably not compliant, because you impose an implicit interface that all inheriting class would have to provide, even if they don't need it (e.g. products not stored in a database). A first step in the right direction, would be to use an interface for the common database operations.
Dependency inversion: we cannot tell but probably it isn't , because update(), delete(),... probably depends on some database, so that you can't switch it to another database. With DIP, you'd inject the database in the class that use it, so that you could at any moment inject another database that offers the same interface.
You didn't ask, but your design seems to correspond to active records. If you want to go for a cleaner, more SOLID design, you should prefer factor out the database related code to either repositories or table data gateways.
I'm having a difficulty figuring out where to put the Level attribute. I want the employee to have a variety of skills which have different levels. For that purpose I made a many to many relationship which is implemented as an EmployeeSkill association class.
An example of said class is as follows: An employee named Jack might have a skill of Java which is level beginner, while he could also have a skill of C# which is advanced level. Should the level be saved in the EmployeeSkill association class or in the Skill class? I suspect it should be on the association class.
A property of the association class?
Your narrative with the Employee instance "Jack" being associated with Skill instance "Java" with a level of "beginner" shows that the skill is independent of the level, and the level is related to the combination of a given employee and a given skill.
To model accurately the semantic of this narrative, level should indeed be the property of the association class EmployeeSkill.
Could it be a property of the skills?
It would not be wrong to move level as a property of Skill. But the model would have a different semantic, since every Employee associated with a Skill would share the same level. This means that "Jack" being associated to a skill like "Java" but rather a skill like Elementary Java.
This alternative model makes it also less convenient to desperately search for all employees knowing about Neural network regardless of the level. And it would not be obvious for the system to see that elementary neural network is related to advanced neural network expertise and that Advanced java has little to do with Advanced javascript.
To have the same power of expression, the skills that are related but correspond to a different level would require an explicit association, which would make the model more cumbersome to use and fragile.
Remarks that are unrelated to your question
You seem to repeat the JobCategory's and the Country's attribute within Employee. This is confusing, as the associations already associate the class with another set of each of these attributes. Did you mean the redundant attributes to implement the associations and show the db table layout than the class? If so, you should disambiguate using some custom stereotypes. But I'd rather recommend to remove the redundant items and make a comment at the bottom of the diagram to explain that you implement associations.
I wonder if the multiplicities of the association between Skill and SkillCategory are not inverted (i.e. one category can have several skills and each skill is associated with only one category) ? Or that you meant a many-to-many association if skills can belong to several categories.
In the association class you use the prefix FK to highlight the foreign keys. Use <<FK>> to make it a custom stereotype (see may first remark about using stereotypes).
As qwerty_so pointed out in the comments, you use a nesting connector for the associations with enumerations. This is syntactically acceptable but does not mean what you think. This is meant to deal with namespaces. Just remove that circle-plus symbol to make it a normal association and it will mean what you think.
I'm new to the MVC way of developing applications and for the most part am enjoying. One thing I'm a bit confused about is the use of the Entity Framework. The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table. A couple of questions:
Why would I define a separate class file for a specific table if EF is building all of the classes that I need in the background?
From some of the validation approaches that I've seen, they want to define validation logic in the class related to a model for a table. If I'm using EF, will I have a .cs file describing the model and a .edmx describing that same table (in addition to its associated tables)?
If yes, how do you connect the .cs file to the .edmx definition so that CRUD flows easily from the EF?
Sorry if these seem like easy questions but I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around these fundamental concepts. Too many examples out there use only a single table where in my business, I NEVER write an application that uses a single table. There are always multiple tables in relation to each other with foreign keys. Thanks for your prompt responses.
For a tutorial that shows the use of partial classes -- in a Web Forms application but for MVC the same technique would be used -- see Adding Metadata to the Data Model in this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/web-forms/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef/the-entity-framework-and-aspnet-getting-started-part-8
From your comment "The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table." it sounds like you are familiar only with Database First and Model First -- for an introduction to Code First and an explanation of the differences, followed by a series of tutorials with an MVC example using Code First, see this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/creating-an-entity-framework-data-model-for-an-asp-net-mvc-application
Good questions, Darryl. Here are my responses to your bullet points:
Defining separate model classes that match the data models that EF creates is generally a good idea for the simple sake of separating your data access "stuff" from your business model objects that will get used throughout your app. Some people don't like this approach because it creates some amount of overhead when it comes to mapping your entities to POCOs but, if you use a tool such as AutoMapper, the overhead is minimal. The benefit lies in you creating a layer of separation between you and your (likely) evolving data model.
You could define validation logic in a buddy class (just a partial class that sits along-side your entity) but that would mean that you would be using that entity across your app and some would debate that that isn't the best idea. The alternative method, as mentioned above, is to create your own POCOs to mirror the entities that EF creates and place your validation attributes on the POCOs.
I mentioned this in the previous item but the way to do this would be to define buddy classes. Give EF buddy classes a Google and you should find plenty of examples on how to do that.
Just to add to all of this, if you choose to create POCO classes that mirror your EF entities, tools like AutoMapper can handle fairly complex relationships when it comes to mapping classes. So, if you have foreign key relationships in your data model, AutoMapper can understand that and map your POCO classes accordingly (i.e.: You have an entity that has a 1-to-many relationship and a POCO with a list of objects to mirror that relationship.)
I hope some of that helps...
I have an Entity called "Product", this entity, through table mapping, merges 6 tables that have a 1 to 1..0 relationship with "Products". This all works wonderfully. There is another property I want to add to "Products", which is sBBR_rate, this value is not in a table that has a direct 1 to 1..0 relationship, it is related through a link table as below:
When I import the two tables into the EDM, I can't see a way in the "Mapping Details" of
"Product" to reference the sBBR_rate. I can reference RatesLink and link that to the "Products" primary key, however, I cannot reference the BBR table.
The methods I can think of to work "around" this is are as follows:
Create a view, reference the view in the EDM.
Create an SP and use a function import to retrieve the BBR when it is required.
Create a "Rates" entity in the EDM that can then draw down the sBBR_rate into it. Navigate to the Products BBR through Product.Rates.sBBR_rate.
Is there a better way I can do this that doesn't feel so much like a fudge? Perhaps by directly editing the XML of the Mapping or Conceptual layers of the EDM?
Thanks for your input.
Because the multiplicities on the Product -> RatesLink and RatesLink -> BBR relationships are 0 to 1, you should be able to access the sBBR_rate from a Product instance like this:
myProductInstance.RatesLink.BBR.sBBR_rate
I can see on the EDM screenshot that RatesLink has a Product and BBR property, which would indicate this should be available - is it?
On a side note, if it makes sense for the sBBR_rate property to commonly be accessed directly from Product, you might want to follow the law of demeter and create a property on Product which returns it directly.
The model we are using is to extend entities by using partial classes which we've found useful so we can get additional properties in the autogenerated classes (we are using a POCO T4 template to autogen but I believe this would work just as well with the default entity object generation).
So we would have
//.. this one is from the T4 template
public partial class Product
{
//.. all the autogenerated methods
}
and in a separate file that isn't autogened
//.. now in a separate file created by me
public partial class Product
{
//.. my custom properties and methods to make the entities more usable
public string BBRRate
{
get {return this.RatesLink.BBR.sBBR_rate; }
}
}
This means that I can just do
myProduct.BBRRte
I know there are other ways to do this by amending the edmx file but this one we found easy to implement. You just need to watch performance because you are potentially loading extra data. Also we did this with LazyLoading turned on but with more work you wouldn't have to
We also experimented with hooking into the ObjectMaterialized event in the ObjectContext class to preload some of these properties. Using a custom interface i.e. IMaterialisable we could check if the object was of that type then call a method (Materialise) to prepopulate some of the properties. This seems like a good idea but we didn't widely use it - it was easy to load up too much stuff. If you do the load on the properties in the partial classes then it becomes more efficient. Just my experience.
Anyway - as always an interesting question and good luck again with your dev.
EDIT
There is a rule that everything in the store layer must be represented some way in your conceptual layer. Therefore removing the tables from the conceptual layer but bring through some of the properties I don't think will work in it's gross form. Therefore I can think of two further options
Create a View on the database and bring that in as you have already mentioned. TBH this is what I would do.
Use the DefiningQuery element directly in your xml (the store layer) and map the query through to a custom entity of your exact design. Julie Lerman describes this as the ultimate escape hatch for Entity Framework.
Remember though - if you manual amend the XML in point 2 then you lose the ability to automatically update the module through the IDE
I ended up creating a view and then linking this view in the EDM, this worked a treat.
So I heard L2S is going the way of the dodo bird. I am also finding out that if I use L2S, I will have to write multiple versions of the same code to target different schemas even if they vary slightly. I originally chose L2S because it was reliable and easy to learn, while EF 3 wasn't ready for public consumption at the time.
After reading lots of praises for EF 4.1, I thought I would do a feasibility test. I discovered that EF 4.1 is a beast to get your head around. It is mindnumblingly complex with hundreds of ways of doing the same thing. It seems to work fine if you're planning on using simple table-to-object mapped entities, but complex POCO object mapping has been a real PITA. There are no good tutorials and the few that exist are very rudimentary.
There are tons of blogs about learning the fundamentals about EF 4.1, but I have a feeling that they deliberately avoid advanced topics. Are there any good tutorials on more complex mapping scenarios? For instance, taking an existing POCO object and mapping it across several tables, or persisting a POCO object that is composed of other POCO objects? I keep hearing this is possible, but haven't found any examples.
Disclaimer: IMO EF 4.1 is best known for its Code-First approach. Most of the following links point to articles about doing stuff in code-first style. I'm not very familiar with DB-First or Model-First approaches.
I have learned many things from Mr. Manavi's blog. Especially, the Inheritance with code-first series was full of new stuff for me. This MSDN link has some valuable links/infos about different mapping scenarios too. Also, I have learned manu stuff by following or answering questions with entity-framework tags here on SO.
Whenever I want to try some new complex object mapping, I do my best (based on my knowledge about EF) to create the correct mappings; However sometimes, you face a dead end. That's why god created StackOverflow. :)
What do you mean by EFv4.1? Do you mean overhyped code-first / fluent-API? In such case live with a fact that it is mostly for simple mapping scenarios. It offers more then L2S but still very little in terms of advanced mappings.
The basic mapping available in EF follows basic rule: one table = one entity. Entity can be single class or composition of the main class representing the entity itself and helper classes for set of mapped fields (complex types).
The most advanced features you will get with EF fluent-API or designer are:
TPH inheritance - multiple tables in inheritance hierarchy mapped to the same table. Types are differed by special column called discriminator. Shared fields must be in parent class.
TPT inheritance - each type mapped to the separate table = basic type has one table and each derived type has one table as well. Shared fields must be defined in base type and thus in base table. Relation between base and derived table is one-to-one. Derived entities span multiple tables.
TPC inheritance - each class has separate table = shared fields must be defined in base type but each derived type has them in its own table.
Entity splitting - entity is split into two or more tables which are related by one-to-one relation. All parts of entity must exist.
Table splitting - table is split into two or more entities related with one-to-one relation.
Designer also offers
Conditional mapping - this is not real mapping. It is only hardcoded filter on mapping level where you select one or more fields to restrict records which are allowed for loading.
When using basic or more advanced features table can participate only in one mapping.
All these mapping techniques follow very strict rules. Your classes and tables must follow these rules to make them work. That means you cannot take arbitrary POCO and map it to multiple tables without satisfying those rules.
These rules can be avoided only when using EDMX and advanced approach with advanced skills = no fluent API and no designer but manual modifications of XML defining EDMX. Once you go this way you can use
Defining query - custom SQL query used to specify loading of new "entity". This is also approach natively used by EDMX and designer when mapping database view
Query view - custom ESQL query used to specify new "entity" from already mapped entities. It is more usable for predefined projections because in contrast to defining query it has some limitations (for example aggregations are not allowed).
Both these features allow you defining classes combined from multiple tables. The disadvantage of both these mapping techniques is that mapped result is read only. You must use stored procedures for persisting changes when using these techniques.