Stephan Walters video on MVC and Models is a very good and light discussion of the various topics listed in this questions title. The one question listed in the notes unanswered was:
If you create an Interface / Repository pattern for Linq2SQL, does Linq2SQLs classes still cause a dependency on Linq, even though you pass the classes as toList?
It is probably an easy answer YES, however, what standard mechanic would you use to represent the data?
Lets say you have a Product entity that is made up of three tables (Prices, Text, and Photos) (you could have sets of price for different regions, different text for localization, and different photos). (Sounds like a builder pattern) Would you create a slice of these tables grabbing the right prices, text, and photos in to a single List? Since Lists may be proprietary, would you use a Dictionary object?
I thank you for your answers. I am very interested in the "standard and proper" way to do it rather than 101 possibilities.
Another quick question: is Entity Framework ready for a complicated database yet? There are a lot of constructs that Linq2SQL likes that EF does not. EF seems to require identity fields as primary keys (HAHA), but it seems like every demo does this. I want to use EF, but I constantly fail to make it work, falling back to Linq2SQL.
If you keep the L2S on the other side of the Repository facade (remember, that's all a Repository is - a facade) then you decouple the rest of your application from L2S. This means that the job of the code behind your repository is to turn the L2S into "domain" objects, custom classes, and then the Repository returns those.
In this sense, the Repository is returning fully formed "Product" objects with all their related Price, Text, and Photo data. This is called an Aggregate Root.
There shouldn't be a problem with Lists, since they are CLR objects.
As far as EF for advanced scenarios, my advice would be not yet, for the reasons you note.
The standard mechanism I'd use to represent the data is a Data Transfer Object. I would never return a LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework object across a service boundary, and I would hesitate to return it across a layer boundary of any kind. This is because these objects will serialize implementation-dependant data.
Related
I'm looking at building an application using Play. Imagine a typical eCommerce domain model: Customer, Order, Order Line Item, Product.
In investigating various options for persistence the recommendation seems to be to avoid ORM layers in Scala and use a different abstraction, such as Slick.
Where I am stuck is that with an ORM I could pass a single "Order" object to my view, which could then use existing relationships to pull related information from the Customer, OrderLines, and Products. With Slick, I'm currently passing a tuple of (Order, Customer, Seq[(OrderLine, Product)]) to the view to provide the same information. If you start to complicate the model a bit more, say with an Address on the customer object, it gets very messy quickly.
Is this the recommended approach or am I missing something? I've found several Play-Slick example applications, but they just have 1 or 2 entities, so they don't really address the issue I bring up here.
Have a look at the Slick-Examples, especially: This one
If you implemented your classes correctly you should be able to access either Customer-object via the Order-object or vice-versa (for example order.customer.name or something like that to access the customer's Name).
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 thought I'll post this to the community. I am using coredata, and have two entities. Both entities have a hierarchical relationship. I am noticing quite a lot of duplicated functionality now, and am wondering if I should re-structure to have a base Entity which is abstract (HierarchicalObject), and make my entities inherit from them.
So the question is are there some limitations of this inheritance that I should take into account? Reading some of the posts out there, I see a few trade-offs, let me know if my assumptions are correct.
(Good) clean up structure, keep the HierarchicalObject functionality in one spot.
(Ok) With inheritance, both objects now end up in the same sqlite table (I am using Sqlite as the backend). So if the number of objects grow, search/sorting could take longer? Not sure if this is a huge deal, as the number of objects in my case should stay pretty static.
(not so good) With inheritance, the relationship could get more complicated? (http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?CoreDataInheritanceIssues)
Are there other things to take into account?
Thanks for your comments.
I think it's a mistake to draw to close a parallel between entities and classes. While very similar they do have some important differences.
The most important difference is that entities don't have code like a class would so when you have entities with duplicate attributes, your not adding a lot of extra coding and potential for introducing bugs.
A lot of people believe that class inheritance must parallel entity inheritance. It does not. As a long as a class descends from NSManagedObject and responds to the right key-value messages for the entity it represents, the class can have many merry adventures in it's inheritance that are not reflected in the entities inheritance. E.g. It's fairly common to create a custom base class right below NSManagedObject and the have all the subsequent managed object subclasses inherit from that regardless of their entities.
I think the only time that entity inheritance is absolutely required is when you need different entities to show up in the same relationship. E.g:
Owner{
vehical<-->Vehical.owner
}
Vehical(abstract){
owner<-->Owner.vehical
}
Motocycle:Vehical{
}
Car:Vehical{
}
Now the Owner.vehical can hold either a Motocycle object or a Car object. Note that the managed object class inheritance for Motocycle and Car don't have to be same. You could have something like Motocycle:TwoWheeled:NSManagedObject and Car:FourWheeled:NSManagedObject and everything would work fine.
In the end, entities are just instructions to context to tell it how the object graph fits together. As long as your entity arrangement makes that happen, you have a lot flexibility in the design details, quite a bit more than you would have in an analogous situation with classes.
I thought it would be useful to mention that the Notes app on iOS 10 uses inheritance in its Core Data model. They use a base entity SyncingObject, that has 7 sub-entities including Note and Folder. And as you mentioned all of these are stored in the same SQLite table which has a whopping 106 columns, and since are shared among all entities most are NULL. They also implemented the folder-notes one-to-many relation as a many-to-many which creates a pivot table, which might be a work-around for an inheritance problem.
There are a couple of advantages to using entity inheritance that likely outweigh these storage limitations. For example, a unique constraint can be unique across entities. And a fetch request for a parent entity can return multiple child entities making UI that uses fetched results controller simpler, e.g. grouping by accounts or folders in a sidebar. Notes uses this to show an "All Notes" row above the Folder rows which is actually backed by an Account.
I have had issues in the past with data migration of models that had inheritance - you may want to experiment with that and see if you can get it to work.
As you noted also, all objects go in one table.
However, as Core Data is managing an object graph, it is really nice to keep the structure the way you would naturally have it just modeling objects - which includes inheritance. There's a lot to be said for keeping the model sane so that you have to do less work in maintaining code.
I have personally used a fairly complex CD model with inheritance in one of my own apps, and it has worked out OK (apart from as I said having issues with data migration, but that has been so flakey for me in general I do not rely on that working any longer).
I'm working with a large hierarchical data set in sql server - modelled using the standard "EntityID, ParentID" kind of approach. There are about 25,000 nodes in the whole tree.
I often need to access subtrees of the tree, and then access related data that hangs off the nodes of the subtree. I built a data access layer a few years ago based on table-valued functions, using recursive queries to fetch an arbitrary subtree, given the root node of the subtree.
I'm thinking of using Entity Framework, but I can't see how to query hierarchical data like
this. AFAIK there is no recursive querying in Linq, and I can't expose a TVF in my entity data model.
Is the only solution to keep using stored procs? Has anyone else solved this?
Clarification: By 25,000 nodes in the tree I'm referring to the size of the hierarchical dataset, not to anything to do with objects or the Entity Framework.
It may the best to use a pattern called "Nested Set", which allows you to get an arbitrary subtree within one query. This is especially useful if the nodes aren't manipulated very often: Managing hierarchical data in MySQL.
In a perfect world the entity framework would provide possibilities to save and query data using this data pattern.
Everything IS possible with Entity Framework but you have to hack and slash your way in to it. The database I am currently working against has too many "holder tables" since Points for instance is shared with both teams and users. Both users and teams can also have a blog.
When you say 25 000 nodes do you mean navigational properties? If so I think it could be tricky to get the data access in place. It's not hard to navigate, search etc with entity framework but I tend to model on paper then create the database based on how I want to navigate while using entity framework. Sounds like you don't have that option.
Thanks for these suggestions.
I'm beginning to realise that the answer is to remodel the data in the database - either along the lines of nested sets as Georg suggests, or maybe a transitive closure table, which I've just come across.
That way, I'm hoping to get two key benefits:
a) faster querying aginst arbitrary subtrees
b) a data model which no longer requires recursive querying - so perhaps bringing it within easy reach of the Entity Framework!
It's always amazing how so often the right answer to a difficult problem is not to answer it, but to do something else instead!
I'm starting a new project and have decided to try to incorporate DDD patterns and also include Linq to Entities. When I look at the EF's ObjectContext it seems to be performing the functions of both Repository and Unit of Work patterns:
Repository in the sense that the underlying data level interface is abstracted from the entity representation and I can request and save data through the ObjectContext.
Unit Of Work in the sense that I can write all my inserts/updates to the objectContext and execute them all in one shot when I do a SaveChanges().
It seems redundant to put another layer of these patterns on top of the EF ObjectContext? It also seems that the Model classes can be incorporated directly on top of the EF generated entities using 'partial class'.
I'm new at DDD so please let me know if I'm missing something here.
I don't think that the Entity Framework is a good implementation of Repository, because:
The object context is insufficiently abstract to do good unit testing of things which reference it, since it is bound to the DB access. Having an IRepository reference instead works much better for creating unit tests.
When a client has access to the ObjectContext, the client can do pretty much anything it cares to. The only real control you have over this at all is to make certain types or properties private. It is hard to implement good data security this way.
On a non-trivial model, the ObjectContext is insufficiently abstract. You may, for example, have both tables and stored procedures mapped to the same entity type. You don't really want the client to have to distinguish between the two mappings.
On a related note, it is difficult to write comprehensive and well-enforce business rules and entity code. Indeed, whether or not it this is even a good idea is debatable.
On the other hand, once you have an ObjectContext, implementing the Repository pattern is trivial. Indeed, for cases that are not particularly complex, the Repository is something of a wrapper around the ObjectContext and the Entity types.
I would say that you should look at the ObjectContext as your UnitOfWork, and not as a repository.
An ObjectContext cannot be a repository -imho- since it is 'to generic'.
You should create your own Repositories, which have specialized methods (like GetCustomersWithGoldStatus for instance) next to the regular CRUD methods.
So, what I would do, is create repositories (one for each aggregate-root), and let those repositories use the ObjectContext.
I like to have a repository layer for the following reasons:
EF gotcha's
When you look at some of the current tutorials on EF (Code First version), it is apparent there's a number of gotcha's to be handled, particularly around object graphs (entities containing entities) and disconnected scenarios. I think a repository layer is great for wrapping these up in one place.
A clear picture of data access mechanisms
A repository gives a specific picture as to how the BL is accessing and updating the data store. It exposes methods that have a clear single purpose, and can be tested independently of the BL. Standard example from the textbooks, Find() to find a single entity. A more application specific example, Clear() to clear down a db table.
A place for optimizations
Inevitably you come up against performance hits when using vanilla EF. I use the repository to hide the optimization mechanisms from the BL.
Examples,
GetKeys() to project cached keys from the tables (for Insert/Update decisions). The reading of key only is faster and uses less memory than reading the full entity.
Bulk load via SqlBulkCopy. EF will insert by individual SQL statements. If you want a single statement to insert multiple rows, SqlBulkCopy is a good mechanism. The repository encapsulates this and provides metadata for SqlBulkCopy. As well as the Insert method, you need a StartBatch() and EndBatch() method, which is also an argument for a UnitOfWork layer.