So i have a situation where i have common base type but i need to map to a different view based on the child type.
It looks like i can use a generic mapping class to handle the inheritance
http://geekswithblogs.net/nharrison/archive/2010/07/09/inheriting-a-class-map-in-fluent-nhibernate.aspx
But how can i conditionally map to a different view based on the child type? I see an EntityType property but it says its obsolete and will be made private in the next version.
As an example i have a base class of ContactInfo is standard between contact types but the values come from different places depending on the contact type, this I'll handle through the sql view.
using any mapping the referenced entity comes from a different table
class ContactInfo
{
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
public virtual ContactDetails Details { get; set; }
}
public ContactInfoMap
{
...
ReferencesAny(x => x.Details)
.EntityIdentifierColumn("details_id")
.EntityTypeColumn("contactType")
.IdentityType<long>()
.AddMetaValue<FooContactDetails>("1")
.AddMetaValue<BarContactDetails>("4");
}
Related
We have quite a few lookup entities that all have the same structure - just ID and Name. For example, Gender, Ethnicity are just dropdown lists on a Patient view. Each lookup entity has views for viewing/adding/editing the values. Each entity has its own controller with nearly identical actions - Index (view list), Create, and Edit. The only thing different is the type.
Is there a way to create one controller and one set of views to manage all of these lookup entities using generics, a base entity, some other technique or a combination of these?
One simple thing you can do is create an Interface for ID and Name. Then inherit it in the models that you need to.
Example
public interface IEntity
{
int Id { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
Inherit this in your models
public class Gender : IEntity
{
}
I have a many-to-many relationship between Assignment and User
When trying to delete an user from an assignment, I see all users are loaded in the collection.
How to I avoid that?
public class User
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual IList<Assignment> Assignments { get; set; }
}
public class Assignment
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
Mappings:
HasManyToMany(user => user.Assignments).Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("UserId").ChildKeyColumn("AssignmentId").Inverse().ExtraLazyLoad();
HasManyToMany(productAssignment => productAssignment.Users).AsSet().Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("AssignmentId").ChildKeyColumn("UserId").LazyLoad();
Calling code:
assignment.Users.Remove(user)
Initially I used Bag instead of Set for Assignment mapping, but when updating it, it was deleting and then reinserting alot of rows in the AssignmentsToUsers table. So I changed to using Set.
But now I see a problem with using Set: it brings all data in memory.
What is the recommended way of doing this?
You can't avoid this and I would ignore it if performance is acceptable. If performance is a problem, there are three ways I can think of to tackle it:
If the other side of the collection (User.Assignments) is lighter weight then remove the assignment from the user instead.
Model the many-to-many table and delete the object directly. You would have to be certain that the Users collection is not going to be loaded prior to this because the in-memory representation will still contain the deleted record.
Direct delete using SQL -- this has the same caveat as #2.
You should use extra lazy mode also for Assignment.Users.
I am using Nhibernate and I have a problem when fetching a base class with multiple derived classes (each class mapping a different table). When I watch the request, Nhibernate joins on every derived tables which has a huge an impact on the performances...
Here is a simplified vision of my classes :
public class Animal{
public virtual int ID { get; set;}
public virtual string Name { get; set;}
}
public class Dog : Animal{
//others properties
}
public class Cat: Animal{
//others properties
}
public class Person{
public virtual int ID { get; set;}
public virtual IEnumerable<Animal> Animals { get; set;}
}
A person has a list of Animals and I just want their names. The example is not perfect and more it's more complicated (a banking program) but it reflect well my problematic.
I KNOW it can be done differently etc, but it is a legacy so I don't have a choice...
Thanks in advance.
IMO NHibernate will only joind tables which contain projected columns. define a query but do not return Person but project into a dto/anonymous class the properties you need
After all, I created a class AnimalBase which is inherited by Dog, Cat and so forth and a class Animal without any child (both having the interface IAnimal).
As in 95% of my request, I only need Animal, I reference this class in my other objects like Person.
Not perfect but I did not find anything better...
Thanks Firo for your help.
Is there something analogous on NHibernate regarding Entity Framework's navigation property? For example, instead of:
s.Save(new Product { Category = s.Get<Category>("FD"), Name = "Pizza" });
I wish I could write:
s.Save(new Product { CategoryId = "FD", Name = "Pizza" });
Can I inform NHibernate not to use the Product's Category property as a mechanism to save the Product's category? I want to use CategoryId instead(Read: I don't want to use DTO). Entity Framework seems able to facilitate avoiding DTO patterns altogether, while at the same time offering the full benefit of ORM(can avoid joins using navigation properties). I want the EF's offering the best of both worlds(lean mechanism for saving objects, i.e. no need to retrieve the property's object) and navigation mechanism for querying stuff
Sample from EF: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/03/15/ef-4-1-code-first-walkthrough.aspx
public class Category
{
public virtual string CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public class Product
{
public virtual int ProductId { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
}
[UPDATE]
Regarding James answer, I tried seeing the NHibernate's actions in SQL Server Profiler.
// this act didn't hit the Category table from the database
var c = s.Load<Category>("FD");
// neither this hit the Category table from the database
var px = new Product { Category = c, Name = "Pizza" };
// this too, neither hit the Category table from the database
s.Save(px);
Only when you actually access the Category object that NHibernate will hit the database
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", c.CategoryId, c.Name);
If I understand your question, you want to save a Product with a Category without hitting the database to load the Category object. NHibernate absolutely supports this and you almost have the right code. Here is how you do it in NHibernate:
s.Save(new Product { Category = s.Load<Category>("FD"), Name = "Pizza" });
This will not hit the database to fetch the actual Category, but it will simply save a Product with the correct Category.Id. Note that you don't need (and I would recommend getting rid of Product.CategoryId).
Now why does this work with session.Load(), but not session.Get()... With session.Get(), NHibernate has to return the object or null. In .NET, there is no way for an object to replace itself with null after the fact. So NHibernate is forced to go to the database (or L1 cache) to verify that the "FD" Category actually exists. If it exists, it returns an object. If not, it must return null.
Let's look at session.Load(). If the object is not present in the database, it throws an exception. So NHibernate can return a proxy object from session.Load() and delay actually hitting the database. When you actually access the object, NHibernate will check the database and can throw an exception at that point if the object doesn't exist. In this case, we're saving a Product to the database. All NHibernate needs is the Category's PK, which it has in the proxy. So it doesn't have to query the database for the Category object. NHibernate never actually needs to hydrate an actual Category object to satisfy the save request.
I have a legacy DB which uses a guid to map children to the parent entity.
In my domain layer, I'd prefer to obscure this quirk, so I'd like to have my parent entity look like this:
public class Parent
{
virtual public int Id {get; protected set; }
virtual public string ParentContent { get; set; }
virtual public Guid ReferenceId { get; set; }
virtual public IDictionary<int,Child> Children { get; set; }
}
public class Child
{
virtual public int Id { get; protected set; }
virtual public Parent { get; set; }
virtual public string ChildContent { get; set; }
}
The parent would then map each Child.Id to Child in the Children dictionary. The Child mapping works fine, but I can't seem to find a reasonable mapping for the parent.
A field named ParentReferenceID exists in both Parent and Child tables, so I've attempted to map this with something like this:
mapping.HasMany<Broker>(x => x.Children)
.Table("Child")
.KeyColumn("ParentReferenceID")
.Inverse()
.AsMap<long>(index=>index.Id,val=>val.Type<Broker>());
Unfortunately, this produces an error:
The type or method has 2 generic parameter(s), but 1 generic argument(s) were provided. A generic argument must be provided for each generic parameter.
To simplify my problem, I started by trying Bag semantics, replacing the Parent's IDictionary with an IList. This was mapped using something like:
mapping.HasMany<Broker>(x => x.Brokers)
.Table("Child")
.KeyColumn("ParentReferenceId")
.Inverse()
.AsBag();
That produces the more obvious exception,
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Operand type clash: uniqueidentifier is incompatible with int
Unfortunately, I can't seem to figure out the right way to tell it to join on the ReferenceID field. What's the right way to do that? I'd prefer the dictionary, but I'd be reasonably happy if I could even get the bag to work.
For clarity, I'm using a build of Fluent that is bundled with a recent SharpArchitecture pulled from git. The Fluent dll is marked version 1.0.0.594, but if a more recent build would help, I'm flexible.
Further digging has led me to a solution for the Bag case, though the dictionary is still giving me a bit of trouble.
The solution requires a patch to Fluent NHibernate's OneToManyPart mapping class. (Hat tip to This bug report: Could not map a one-to-many relationship where the key is not the primary key.
mapping.HasMany(x => x.Children)
.Table("Child").KeyColumn("ParentReferenceId")
.PropertyRef("ReferenceId")
.Inverse()
.AsBag();
Theoretically, AsMap should work almost the same way, but for some reason that I'm not entirely clear on, it doesn't work for me. I'll explore that later, but I'm open to suggestions.