So, I've been searching for the answer to this, but I can't find anything
I have an Entity Framework Model (MyModel1) - for now, we'll say this contains a "Users" table
It's part of a big app, that has a references to an "Addresses" project
The addresses project contains an Entity Framework Model (MyModel2), this contains a Users table, and an Addresses table (pointing to the same database.
The main app has a control that edits the user, and in that control it has an "addresses" control which actually exists in the "Addresses" project.
To make this work, the User control passes the User object down to the addresses control, however, as the User that's been passed belongs to MyModel1 and not MyModel2, another User object has to be loaded up, then it can be used.
This isn't ideal as I've had to load up the User twice. Is there a way of say, MyModel2 extending MyModel1, which effectively just adds a relationship to "User". Or is there an ORM that would handle this better? Or even a design pattern that would handle this better?
I discovered Fluent NHibernate which seems to give me a load more control over how the data layer is put together, through some seriously crazy code I was able to extend the entities in a plugin kind of way, very cool
It sounds like today you have a projects that are a mixture of UI, business logic and data access logic.
A better approach would be to put your Data Access layer into a single project separate from the business logic and the UI. Create an EDMX that includes both Users and Addresses and provide a single ObjectContext that can be used to handle the whole process.
Take a look at the Repository pattern too.
Related
We need to implement a comprehensive audit log of changes for an aggregate entity called Project, where users can see what changed with each save and the before and after values of those changes. The entity contains a few child collections (for example a collection of TeamMember entities).
There are options like EF Plus (http://entityframework-plus.net/) which manages the audit for you or we could override EFs savechanges() and write to our own audit table manually.
Where things get tricky are where you have a navigation property. Any child collections such as TeamMembers are seen as a separate entry in the change tracker and therefore would be logged as an update independently of project. We need to be able to track all changes for a specific project i.e. anything that has changed within that object graph.
Having searched quite exhaustively online, we are at a bit of loss as to what to try. The option we are looking at now is serialising into JSON the whole Project entity, prior to and after save, into an audit log. We then need to write some custom comparison logic to see whats changed and return that to the UI. This seems like unnecessary complexity.
If anyone in the community has done this before and has a good approach or any ideas here it would be of great help.
Currently, I'm working on a Java EE project with some non-trivial requirements regarding persistence management. Changes to entities by users first need to be applied to some working copy before being validated, after which they are applied to the "live data". Any changes on that live data also need to have some record of them, to allow auditing.
The entities are managed via JPA, and Hibernate will be used as provider. That is a given, so we don't shy away from Hibernate-specific stuff. For the first requirement, two persistence units are used. One maps the entities to the "live data" tables, the other to the "working copy" tables. For the second requirement, we're going to use Hibernate Envers, a good fit for our use-case.
So far so good. Now, when users view the data on the (web-based) front-end, it would be very useful to be able to indicate which fields were changed in the working copy compared to the live data. A different colour would suffice. For this, we need some way of knowing which properties were altered. My question is, what would be a good way to go about this?
Using the JavaBeans API, a PropertyChangeListener could suffice to be notified of any changes in an entity of the working copy and keep a set of them. But the set would also need to be persisted, since the application could be restarted and changes can be long-lived before they're validated and applied to the live data. And applying the changes on the live data to obtain the working copy every time it is needed isn't feasible (hence the two persistence units).
We could also compare the working copy to the live data and find fields that are different. Some introspection and reflection code would suffice, but again that seems rather processing-intensive, not to mention the live data would need to be fetched.
Maybe I'm missing something simple, or someone know of a wonderful JPA/Hibernate feature I can use. Even if I can't avoid making (a) separate database table(s) for storing such information until it is applied to the live data, some best-practices or real-life experience with this scenario could be very useful.
I realize it's a semi-open question but surely other people must have encountered a requirement like this. Any good suggestion is appreciated, and any pointer to a ready-made solution would be a good candidate as accepted answer.
Maybe you can use the Hibernate flush entity event listener. The dirty properties are calculated before the flush. You can store them somewhere in your database.
A sample code of using the dirty properties feature of Hibernate which may give you an idea.
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'm working upon a small-scale enterprise database application. It works with such business objects as Vendors, Device types, Devices, Suppliers, Invoices, Departments, Employees etc., so I need to let users view and edit data from all these tables.
My first approach was to create a pair of forms for each type of business object:
a table to view and select an object
an editing form for this type of object
But now I find it hard to maintain all these forms, because e.g. if I want to change the look of all view forms, of course I have to edit each one of them.
So I want to replace all my view forms with a single one "template" form and to call it with some kind of parameters. The problem is, I don't know the right approach to perform it. Maybe there could be some example in some book or somewhere else?
I think the best way is by using Visual Form Inheritance .
Actually we use this kind of programming a lot, it keeps maintenance pretty simple. Stick your base functionality in the parent form, and specific behaviour in the child forms.
I like working with the entity framework for many reasons- the ease of use of the entity designer, the power of linq, and the ease of binding.
Occasionally I want to build a simple app that doesnt need to use a database, but still needs to work with data and display it on screen, in grids etc, so I'd like to just create a quick EF model and use it for this, but it doesnt seem to work very will with just using it for local data.
My question is- is there a correct usage of the EF for working with local data, and perhaps then just serialize/deserialize the whole context to a file? Or is this just too much effort to make work properyly? I used to use Datasets in this way, along with Linq to Dataset, and it works well... So perhaps those are still the better way to go for this scenario?
Yes you can use entity framework as local, and also access the data that is currently in-memory, read details as link below:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj592872.aspx
I don't know what you mean by "local data" exactly (sounds like it's not a database), but I think the Datasets vs. EF portion of your post is (for me) the real question.
EF is great when you need to model robust business logic, are implementing a Domain Model pattern, using Domain Driven Design, etc: basically any scenario where a Table Module or Active Record pattern is inappropriate.
When you just need to display some grids of data, and the business logic is very simple, Datasets are definitely the way to go (in my experience).