When exactly does NHibernate convert a collection that, while the Session is open is represented as a PersistentGenericBag, but later on is converted back to the IList that I defined in my source code?
I thought it was when either the transaction was committed, or the session was disconnected. But I'm writing a unit test and no matter how many things I close, flush, commit and disconnect, my object always has a PersistentGenericBag, not a List.
Thanks
Do not get me wrong. But do you really have mapping like this?
public class MyObject
{
public virtual List<string> MyColl { get; set; }
}
Because my experience says, that this will end up in exception like this:
NHibernate.PropertyAccessException: Invalid Cast (check your mapping for property type mismatches);
setter of MyLib.MyObject ---> System.InvalidCastException: Unable to cast object of type 'NHibernate.Collection.Generic.PersistentGenericBag'1[System.String]' to type 'System.Collections.Generic.List1[System.String]`
What I would expect inside your mapping is IList<>. Because exactly this will allow the NHibernate to inject its own implementation of it. Namely: PersistentGenericBag
public class MyObject
{
public virtual IList<string> MyColl { get; set; }
}
And in that case, the answer is: never. The proxy of MyObject provides all functionality published by IList<> while still working with property of type PersistentGenericBag
And when is it really populated? when firstly accessed (via getter). Inner implementation of PersistentGenericBag will execute sql query and load data into internal IList<>. Of course session have to be still opened and connected to MyObject
Related
I had seen some books(e.g programming entity framework code first Julia Lerman) define their domain classes (POCO) with no initialization of the navigation properties like:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Address> Address { get; set; }
public virtual License License { get; set; }
}
some other books or tools (e.g Entity Framework Power Tools) when generates POCOs initializes the navigation properties of the the class, like:
public class User
{
public User()
{
this.Addresses = new IList<Address>();
this.License = new License();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
public virtual License License { get; set; }
}
Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?
Edit:
public class License
{
public License()
{
this.User = new User();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Key { get; set; }
public DateTime Expirtion { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
Q2: In second approach there would be stack overflow if the `License` class has a reference to `User` class too. It means we should have one-way reference.(?) How we should decide which one of the navigation properties should be removed?
Collections: It doesn't matter.
There is a distinct difference between collections and references as navigation properties. A reference is an entity. A collections contains entities. This means that initializing a collection is meaningless in terms of business logic: it does not define an association between entities. Setting a reference does.
So it's purely a matter of preference whether or not, or how, you initialize embedded lists.
As for the "how", some people prefer lazy initialization:
private ICollection<Address> _addresses;
public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses
{
get { return this._addresses ?? (this._addresses = new HashSet<Address>());
}
It prevents null reference exceptions, so it facilitates unit testing and manipulating the collection, but it also prevents unnecessary initialization. The latter may make a difference when a class has relatively many collections. The downside is that it takes relatively much plumbing, esp. when compared to auto properties without initialization. Also, the advent of the null-propagation operator in C# has made it less urgent to initialize collection properties.
...unless explicit loading is applied
The only thing is that initializing collections makes it hard to check whether or not a collection was loaded by Entity Framework. If a collection is initialized, a statement like...
var users = context.Users.ToList();
...will create User objects having empty, not-null Addresses collections (lazy loading aside). Checking whether the collection is loaded requires code like...
var user = users.First();
var isLoaded = context.Entry(user).Collection(c => c.Addresses).IsLoaded;
If the collection is not initialized a simple null check will do. So when selective explicit loading is an important part of your coding practice, i.e. ...
if (/*check collection isn't loaded*/)
context.Entry(user).Collection(c => c.Addresses).Load();
...it may be more convenient not to initialize collection properties.
Reference properties: Don't
Reference properties are entities, so assigning an empty object to them is meaningful.
Worse, if you initiate them in the constructor, EF won't overwrite them when materializing your object or by lazy loading. They will always have their initial values until you actively replace them. Worse still, you may even end up saving empty entities in the database!
And there's another effect: relationship fixup won't occcur. Relationship fixup is the process by which EF connects all entities in the context by their navigation properties. When a User and a Licence are loaded separately, still User.License will be populated and vice versa. Unless of course, if License was initialized in the constructor. This is also true for 1:n associations. If Address would initialize a User in its constructor, User.Addresses would not be populated!
Entity Framework core
Relationship fixup in Entity Framework core (2.1 at the time of writing) isn't affected by initialized reference navigation properties in constructors. That is, when users and addresses are pulled from the database separately, the navigation properties are populated.
However, lazy loading does not overwrite initialized reference navigation properties.
In EF-core 3, initializing a reference navigation property prevents Include from working properly.
So, in conclusion, also in EF-core, initializing reference navigation properties in constructors may cause trouble. Don't do it. It doesn't make sense anyway.
In all my projects I follow the rule - "Collections should not be null. They are either empty or have values."
First example is possible to have when creation of these entities is responsibility of third-part code (e.g. ORM) and you are working on a short-time project.
Second example is better, since
you are sure that entity has all properties set
you avoid silly NullReferenceException
you make consumers of your code happier
People, who practice Domain-Driven Design, expose collections as read-only and avoid setters on them. (see What is the best practice for readonly lists in NHibernate)
Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?
It is better to expose not-null colections since you avoid additional checks in your code (e.g. Addresses). It is a good contract to have in your codebase. But it os OK for me to expose nullable reference to single entity (e.g. License)
Q2: In second approach there would be stack overflow if the License class has a reference to User class too. It means we should have one-way reference.(?) How we should decide which one of the navigation properties should be removed?
When I developed data mapper pattern by myself I tryed to avoid bidirectional references and had reference from child to parent very rarely.
When I use ORMs it is easy to have bidirectional references.
When it is needed to build test-entity for my unit-tests with bidirectional reference set I follow the following steps:
I build parent entity with emty children collection.
Then I add evey child with reference to parent entity into children collection.
Insted of having parameterless constructor in License type I would make user property required.
public class License
{
public License(User user)
{
this.User = user;
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Key { get; set; }
public DateTime Expirtion { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
It's redundant to new the list, since your POCO is depending on Lazy Loading.
Lazy loading is the process whereby an entity or collection of entities is automatically loaded from the database the first time that a property referring to the entity/entities is accessed. When using POCO entity types, lazy loading is achieved by creating instances of derived proxy types and then overriding virtual properties to add the loading hook.
If you would remove the virtual modifier, then you would turn off lazy loading, and in that case your code no longer would work (because nothing would initialize the list).
Note that Lazy Loading is a feature supported by entity framework, if you create the class outside the context of a DbContext, then the depending code would obviously suffer from a NullReferenceException
HTH
The other answers fully answer the question, but I'd like to add something since this question is still relevant and comes up in google searches.
When you use the "code first model from database" wizard in Visual Studio all collections are initialized like so:
public partial class SomeEntity
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public SomeEntity()
{
OtherEntities = new HashSet<OtherEntity>();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<OtherEntity> OtherEntities { get; set; }
}
I tend to take wizard output as basically being an official recommendation from Microsoft, hence why I'm adding to this five-year-old question. Therefore, I'd initialize all collections as HashSets.
And personally, I think it'd be pretty slick to tweak the above to take advantage of C# 6.0's auto-property initializers:
public virtual ICollection<OtherEntity> OtherEntities { get; set; } = new HashSet<OtherEntity>();
Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?
The second variant when virtual properties are set inside an entity constructor has a definite problem which is called "Virtual member call in a constructor".
As for the first variant with no initialization of navigation properties, there are 2 situations depending on who / what creates an object:
Entity framework creates an object
Code consumer creates an object
The first variant is perfectly valid when Entity Framework creates a object,
but can fail when a code consumer creates an object.
The solution to ensure a code consumer always creates a valid object is to use a static factory method:
Make default constructor protected. Entity Framework is fine to work with protected constructors.
Add a static factory method that creates an empty object, e.g. a User object, sets all properties, e.g. Addresses and License, after creation and returns a fully constructed User object
This way Entity Framework uses a protected default constructor to create a valid object from data obtained from some data source and code consumer uses a static factory method to create a valid object.
I use the answer from this Why is my Entity Framework Code First proxy collection null and why can't I set it?
Had problems with constructor initilization. Only reason I do this is to make test code easier. Making sure collection is never null saves me constantly initialising in tests etc
I've been modeling a domain for a couple of days now and not been thinking at all at persistance but instead focusing on domain logic. Now I'm ready to persist my domain objects, some of which contains IEnumerable of child entities. Using RavenDb, the persistance is 'easy', but when loading my objects back again, all of the IEnumerables are empty.
I've realized this is because they don't have any property setters at all, but instead uses a list as a backing field. The user of the domain aggregate root can add child entities through a public method and not directly on the collection.
private readonly List<VeryImportantPart> _veryImportantParts;
public IEnumerable<VeryImportantPart> VeryImportantParts { get { return _veryImportantParts; } }
And the method for adding, nothing fancy...
public void AddVeryImportantPart(VeryImportantPart part)
{
// some logic...
_veryImportantParts.Add(part);
}
I can fix this by adding a private/protected setter on all my IEnumerables with backing fields but it looks... well... not super sexy.
private List<VeryImportantPart> _veryImportantParts;
public IEnumerable<VeryImportantPart> VeryImportantParts
{
get { return _veryImportantParts; }
protected set { _veryImportantParts = value.ToList(); }
}
Now the RavenDb json serializer will populate my objects on load again, but I'm curious if there isn't a cleaner way of doing this?
I've been fiddeling with the JsonContractResolver but haven't found a solution yet...
I think I've found the root cause of this issue and it's probably due to the fact that many of my entities were created using:
protected MyClass(Guid id, string name, string description) : this()
{ .... }
public static MyClass Create(string name, string description)
{
return new MyClass(Guid.NewGuid(), name, description);
}
When deserializing, RavenDb/Json.net couldn't rebuild my entities in a proper way...
Changing to using a public constructor made all the difference.
Do you need to keep a private backing field? Often an automatic property will do.
public IList<VeryImportantPart> VeryImportantParts { get; protected set; }
When doing so, you may want to initialize your list in the constructor:
VeryImportantParts = new List<VeryImportantPart>();
This is optional, of course, but it allows you to create a new class and start adding to the list right away, before it is persisted. When Raven deserializes a class, it will use the setter to overwrite the default blank list, so this just helps with the first store.
You certainly won't be able to use a readonly field, as it couldn't be replaced during deserialization. It might be possible to write a contract resolver or converter that fills an existing list rather than creating a new one, but that seems like a rather complex solution.
Using an automatic property can add clarity to your code anyway - as it is less confusing whether to use the field or the property.
This is such a simple and common scenario I wonder how did I managed until now and why I have problems now.
I have this object (part of the Infrastructure assembly)
public class Queue {}
public class QueueItem
{
public QueueItem(int blogId,string name,Type command,object data)
{
if (name == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("name");
if (command == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("command");
BlogId = blogId;
CommandType = command;
ParamValue = data;
CommandName = name;
AddedOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
public Guid Id { get; internal set; }
public int BlogId { get; private set; }
public string CommandName { get; set; }
public Type CommandType { get; private set; }
public object ParamValue { get; private set; }
public DateTime AddedOn { get; private set; }
public DateTime? ExecutedOn { get; private set; }
public void ExecuteIn(ILifetimeScope ioc)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
This will be created in another assembly like this
var qi = new QueueItem(1,"myname",typeof(MyCommand),null);
Nothing unusal here. However, this object will be sent t oa repository where it will be persisted.The Queue object will ask the repository for items. The repository should re-create QueueItem objects.
However, as you see, the QueueItem properties are invariable, the AddedOn property should be set only once when the item is created. The Id property will be set by the Queue object (this is not important).
The question is how should I recreate the QueueItem in the repository? I can have another constructor which will require every value for ALL the properties, but I don't want that constructor available for the assembly that will create the queue item initially. The repository is part of a different assembly so internal won't work.
I thought about providing a factory method
class QueueItem
{
/* ..rest of definitions.. */
public static QueueItem Restore(/* list of params*/){}
}
which at least clears the intent, but I don't know why I don't like this approach. I could also enforce the item creation only by the Queue , but that means to pass the Queue as a dependency to the repo which again isn't something I'd like. To have a specific factory object for this, also seems way overkill.
Basically my question is: what is the optimum way to recreate an object in the repository, without exposing that specific creational functionality to another consumer object.
Update
It's important to note that by repository I mean the pattern itself as an abstraction, not a wrapper over an ORM. It doesn't matter how or where the domain objects are persisted. It matters how can be re-created by the repository. Another important thing is that my domain model is different from the persistence model. I do use a RDBMS but I think this is just an implementation detail which should not bear any importance, since I'm looking for way that doesn't depend on a specific storage access.
While this is a specific scenario, it can applied to basically every object that will be restored by the repo.
Update2
Ok I don't know how I could forget about AutoMapper. I was under the wrong impression it can't map private fields/setter but it can, and I think this is the best solution.
In fact I can say the optimum solutions (IMO) are in order:
Directly deserializing, if available.
Automap.
Factory method on the domain object itself.
The first two don't require the object to do anyting in particular, while the third requires the object to provide functionality for that case (a way to enter valid state data). It has clear intent but it pretty much does a mapper job.
Answer Updated
To answer myself, in this case the optimum way is to use a factory method. Initially I opted for the Automapper but I found myself using the factory method more often. Automapper can be useful sometimes but in quite a lot of cases it's not enough.
An ORM framework would take care of that for you. You just have to tell it to rehydrate an object and a regular instance of the domain class will be served to you (sometimes you only have to declare properties as virtual or protected, in NHibernate for instance). The reason is because under the hood, they usually operate on proxy objects derived from your base classes, allowing you to keep these base classes intact.
If you want to implement your own persistence layer though, it's a whole nother story. Rehydrating an object from the database without breaking the scope constraints originally defined in the object is likely to involve reflection. You also have to think about a lot of side concerns : if your object has a reference to another object, you must rehydrate that one before, etc.
You can have a look at that tutorial : Build Your Own dataAccess Layer although I wouldn't recommend reinventing the wheel in most cases.
You talked about a factory method on the object itself. But DDD states that entities should be created by a factory. So you should have a QueueItemFactory that can create new QueueItems and restore existing QueueItems.
Ok I don't know how I could forget about AutoMapper.
I wish I could forget about AutoMapper. Just looking at the hideous API gives me shivers down my spine.
I'm trying to take a datacontract object that I received on the server, do some manipulation on it and then return an upcasted version of it however it doesn't seem to be working. I can get it to work by using the KnownType or ServiceKnownType attributes, but I don't want to roundtrip all of the data. Below is an example:
[DataContract]
public class MyBaseObject
{
[DataMember]
public int Id { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class MyDerivedObject : MyBaseObject
{
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
[ServiceContract(Namespace = "http://My.Web.Service")]
public interface IServiceProvider
{
[OperationContract]
List<MyBaseObject> SaveMyObjects(List<MyDerivedObject> myDerivedObjects);
}
public class ServiceProvider : IServiceProvider
{
public List<MyBaseObject> SaveMyObjects(List<MyDerivedObject> myDerivedObjects)
{
... do some work ...
myDerivedObjects[0].Id = 123;
myDerivedObjects[1].Id = 456;
myDerivedObjects[2].Id = 789;
... do some work ...
return myDerivedObjects.Cast<MyBaseObject>().ToList();
}
}
Anybody have any ideas how to get this to work without having to recreate new objects or using the KnownType attributes?
I think that your problem is that you are trying to send over a generic list.
It will work if you encapsulate the list in an object. That is create an object with a single public property which is the generic list.
You also need to make sure that all classes that are not used directly in the contract are marked as serializable.
If you want to return the derived objects then there will always be a round trip because the client and the service are separate. In order for the client to update its own list of MyBaseObjects it has to deserialize the list of MyDerivedObjects that came from the server.
The use of KnownType and/or ServiceKnownType is needed because this leads to the addition of that type information into WSDL, which is in turn used by the client to deserialize the messages to the correct type.
For starters, a useful tool for testing the scenario you've described: http://www.wcfstorm.com
You might try creating a DataContractSurrogate (IDataContractSurrogate) and returning your base type for the call to GetDataContractType. I'm not really sure that's how it was intended to be used so you still may be better of with "the extra work", but maybe I don't understand the scope of that extra work.
One of the problems with WCF (and .net remoting) is that it they tries to make “message passing” look like method calls.
This fall down when you try to use too many “oop” type designs.
The fact that the messages are
represented by .net classes, does not
make all of their behaviour like .net
class.
See this, and this, for more on the problem of Leaking Abstraction.
So you need to start thinking about message passing not object when designing your WCF interfaces, or you will hit lots of problems like this.
I know that a private parameterless constructor works but what about an object with no parameterless constructors?
I would like to expose types from a third party library so I have no control over the type definitions.
If there is a way what is the easiest? E.g. I don't what to have to create a sub type.
Edit:
What I'm looking for is something like the level of customization shown here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163902.aspx
although I don't want to have to resort to streams to serialize/deserialize.
You can't really make arbitrary types serializable; in some cases (XmlSerializer, for example) the runtime exposes options to spoof the attributes. But DataContractSerializer doesn't allow this. Feasible options:
hide the classes behind your own types that are serializable (lots of work)
provide binary formatter surrogates (yeuch)
write your own serialization core (a lot of work to get right)
Essentially, if something isn't designed for serialization, very little of the framework will let you serialize it.
I just ran a little test, using a WCF Service that returns an basic object that does not have a default constructor.
//[DataContract]
//[Serializable]
public class MyObject
{
public MyObject(string _name)
{
Name = _name;
}
//[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
//[DataMember]
public string Address { get; set; }
}
Here is what the service looks like:
public class MyService : IMyService
{
#region IMyService Members
public MyObject GetByName(string _name)
{
return new MyObject(_name) { Address = "Test Address" };
}
#endregion
}
This actually works, as long as MyObject is either a [DataContract] or [Serializable]. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to need the default constructor on the client side. There is a related post here:
How does WCF deserialization instantiate objects without calling a constructor?
I am not a WCF expert but it is unlikely that they support serialization on a constructor with arbitrary types. Namely because what would they pass in for values? You could pass null for reference types and empty values for structs. But what good would a type be that could be constructed with completely empty data?
I think you are stuck with 1 of 2 options
Sub class the type in question and pass appropriate default values to the non-parameterless constructor
Create a type that exists soley for serialization. Once completed it can create an instance of the original type that you are interested in. It is a bridge of sorts.
Personally I would go for #2. Make the class a data only structure and optimize it for serialization and factory purposes.