This is an Nhibernate question that has bothered me for some time...
If I model a simple order entry domain as:
public class Order: BaseEntity
{
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
public Order(Customer customer)
{
...
}
}
public class Customer: BaseEntity
{
public virtual string Name {get; set;}
public virtual Order CreateOrder()
{
return new Order(this);
}
}
While the above code works to create an Order instance, the newly created instance will not be persisted to the DB unless either:
The BaseEntity or the derived class is aware of the NHibernate
session (which breaks POCO)
There is a service layer (or repository) that calls ISession.Save() on the
newly created Order object that needs to be NHibernate-aware
So, this leads me to believe that my NHibernate POCO classes themselves should not contain any of our business rules (and should be kept to only properties and constructors), but the service layer 'above' the domain model should be where the logic should live. Presumably, this service layer would receive its persistence functionality through dependency injection.
Anyone care to confirm/deny my assertion that business methods should NOT exist within the POCO model?
Thanks,
David
Business logic in the domain model is the whole point of having the model in the first place.
You can use Nhibernate's cascade feature to make your order become automatically persisted if the customer owning it is persistent.
Related
Given the following scenario:
A project using a framework
The framework defines basic entity classes (used for logging, user management etc.)
The project has application specific entity classes.
I want to subclass a framework class in a way that does not need changes to the framework code nor the framework specific database schema (apart from any constraints that maybe introduced by additional mappings).
Here is a simplified framework class:
package com.example.parent;
#Entity
#Table("entities")
public class ExampleEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
protected Integer id;
protected String name;
}
And the application specific extension:
package com.example.child;
#Entity
public class ExampleEntity extends com.example.parent.ExampleEntity {
#OneToMany
#JoinColumn
protected Set<OtherEntity> otherEntities;
}
As you can see this just adds an additional mapping to an application specific entity class.
This won't work with Hibernate 4.3.11 out-of-the-box. It will try to create a discriminator column (dtype) which is not desired and IMHO not required here.
I want this to be as transparent as possible (i.e. without changing anything on the framework side) and without any additional manual mapping/casting in the application. Effectively, I want to trick Hibernate into loading only instances of com.example.child.ExampleEntity without the framework even noticing.
TL;DR
How to trick Hibernate into loading entities from the entities table as instances of com.example.child.ExampleEntity?
You can used #Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED) on the parent class. You can find an example here.
So it would work with
package com.example.parent;
#Entity
#Table("entities")
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class ExampleEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
protected Integer id;
protected String name;
}
So you can join any other table to children or parent
This is the official documentation about inheritance mapping.
With Repository pattern and ViewModels, how do you build queries against the database if you don't want the raw database objects to leak outside the repository? How do I actually create queries without loading ALL the database in memory and using LINQ to Objects? I can't expose IQueryable to the rest of the app.
For example, with EF I have a bunch of POCOs with several properties that match db fields, but also some stuff to work around enums not being directly support (for now) as well as foreign key IDs to prevent N+1 and easier querying and so on. I don't want them to leak out to the rest of the application, I want the application to just see a normal object graph.
public class DbUser
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get set; }
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public DbGroup Group { get; set; }
public ICollection<DbComment> { get; set; }
}
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get set; }
public Group Group { get; set; }
public ICollection<Comment> { get; set; }
}
The problem here is my repository will internally use EF for the querying (and in-memory stuff when unit testing). But how do I implement IQueryable<User> FindAll()? I can't just do return dbContext.Users.Select(u => new User(u)), as in that case I lose all possible query ability; it'll just load the whole user collection in memory, convert all the types to User from DbUser and then build LINQ queries on the in-memory collection - that is horribly inefficient.
I can't just build queries in the repository. On some pages I have queries that select a few fields, but also calculate some complex stuff from other related objects, filter them based on the result (for example count of comments with positive score), but I also need that back in the application. I could select all objects used to get the complex stuff and return them to the application (but not as db entities) but that would mean select a LOT of data.
Basically how do I prevent the database entities from polluting the rest of the application with their cruft and hacks, while still maintaining the ability to build queries outside of the repository?
CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) solves this problem. You have the 'real' model , the Domain model, with all the business rules and all that, and a 'query-ony' model which basically is a simple poco (which can be used directly by Views) that will be returned by a specialised query only repository.
The peristence model (EF entities) are used only to 'talk' with the db, the repos always returns or deals with domain/ application objects. Basically, you have to map the EF entities to the Domain ones (and viceversa when saving). In this way, you'll have separated models each with its own purpose.
I have a domain model that includes something like this:
public class Customer : EntityBase<Customer>, IAggregateRoot
{
public IList<Comment> Comments { get; set; }
}
public class Comment : EntityBase<Comment>
{
public User CreatedBy { get; set; }
public bool Private { get; set; }
}
I have a service layer through which I retrieve these entities, and among the arguments passed to that service layer is who the requesting user is.
What I'd like to do is be able to construct a DetachedCriteria in the service layer that would limit the Comment items returned for a given customer so the user isn't shown any comments that don't belong to them and are marked private.
I tried doing something like this:
criteria.CreateCriteria("Comments")
.Add(Restrictions.Or(Restrictions.Eq("Private", false),
Restrictions.And(Restrictions.Eq("Private", true),
Restrictions.Eq("CreatedBy.Id", requestingUser.Id))));
But this doesn't flow through to the lazy-loaded comments.
I'd prefer not to use a filter because that would require either interacting with the session (which isn't currently exposed to the service layer) or forcing my repository to know about user context (which seems like too much logic in what should be a dumb layer). The filter is a dirty solution for other reasons, too -- the logic that determines what is visible and what isn't is more detailed than just a private flag.
I don't want to use LINQ in the service layer to filter the collection because doing so would blow the whole lazy loading benefit in a really bad way. Lists of customers where the comments aren't relevant would cause a storm of database calls that would be very slow. I'd rather not use LINQ in my presentation layer (an MVC app) because it seems like the wrong place for it.
Any ideas whether this is possible using the DetachedCriteria? Any other ways to accomplish this?
Having the entity itself expose a different set of values for a collection property based on some external value does not seem correct to me.
This would be better handled, either as a call to your repository service directly, or via the entity itself, by creating a method to do this specifically.
To fit in best with your current model though, I would have the call that you currently make to get the the entities return a viewmodel rather than just the entities;
public class PostForUser
{
public Post Post {get; set;}
public User User {get; set;}
public IList<Comment> Comments}
}
And then in your service method (I am making some guesses here)
public PostForUser GetPost(int postId, User requestingUser){
...
}
You would then create and populate the PostForUser view model in the most efficient way, perhaps by the detached criteria, or by a single query and a DistinctRootEntity Transformer (you can leave the actual comments property to lazy load, as you probably won't use it)
Here's the scenario:
I've got an association between "Groups" and "Users, represented by a "UserGroupAssignment" object.
public class UserGroupAssignment
{
[Key]
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
[Association("UserAssignmentToUser", "UserId", "Id", IsForeignKey = true)]
public virtual User { get; set; }
[Association("UserAssignmentToGroup", "GroupId", "Id", IsForeignKey = true)]
public virtual Group { get; set; }
public virtual bool IsPrimary { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime? ValidFrom { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime? ValidTo { get; set; }
}
I have two business logic methods, GetUserAssignmentsForGroups and GetGroupAssignmentsForUsers that I return the assignments with the User and Group properties populated respectively. i.e. GetUserAssignmentsForGroup takes a GroupId and returns the assignments for that Group with the User property populated.
What I want is to expose those two methods as domain query methods like so:
[Query]
public IQueryable<UserGroupAssignment> GetAssignmentsForGroupWithUsers(long groupId)
{
return this.businessLogic.GetUserAssignmentsForGroups(groupId);
}
[Query]
public IQueryable<UserGroupAssignment> GetAssignmentsForUserWithGroups(long userId)
{
return this.businessLogic.GetGroupAssignmentsForUsers(userId)
}
My problem is that whilst the business logic methods return the correctly populated Assignments via NHibernate, RIA Services is NOT passing the sub-entities (User or Group) across the wire.
I don't want to use [Include] attributes on the User or Group properties of the UserAssignment class, as I want to minimise the payload over the wire - I don't want to send the group over when I'm only interested in the User of each UserAssignment, for example.
So my question is this:
How do I tell RIA services to
explicitly include User sub-entities
in one domain query method and Group
sub-entities in the other?
Remember, I'm using NHibernate at the back end and custom query methods in the RIA Services, so can't use the EF-style include in the client query.
Thanks
Joel
you should apply the [Include] attribute in the metadata class. then create one domain service method for fetching data without properties included, and a separate method for fetching data with properties included.
You might find this thread helpful in understanding how [Include] attribute works.
Old question, but still interesting. Did you find a solution ?
As far as I know of WCF RIA Architecture it isn't so easy.
An easy and dirty way could be to override the Query method, force the enumeration of the IQueryable being returned (I guess you're using LINQ to nHibernate, in which case, good luck) then examine the HttpContext (you're using WCF RiaServices so you MUST have aspNetCompatibility turned on) and set to null the reference that you don't want to send over the wire (User or Group).
Anyway this way FORCE you to use the [IncludeAttribute]. However I don't see any reasonable route that avoid its use, and this way allow you to send the entity over the wire just when you need to.
IMO I belive that in order to totally avoid the use of [Include] you must rollout your own serializer serverside and deserializer clientside or change the UserGroupAssignment entity so that the user property become a string containing the serialized User (or Group) that you decide to valorize or not according your method.
Please let us knows if you already found a solution, the question is interesting.
I started using NHibernate today, but I cannot figure out how I setup a simple relation between two tables. I don't really know what it's called, it could be one-to-many or foreign key relation (I'm not that into database design and the terms used), but here's a very simple example.
I have a table Product with attributes Id (PK), ProductName and CategoryId. Then I have a table Categories with attributes Id (PK) and CategoryName.
I created these classes:
public class Product
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string ProductName { get; set; }
public virtual int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryName
{
get { return this.Category == null ? String.Empty : this.Category.CategoryName; }
}
}
public class Category
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryName { get; set; }
}
In other words, I simply want the Product to store to which category it belongs (via the CategoryId attribute which points to an Id in the Categories table). I don't need the Category class to hold a list of related Products, if that makes it any simpler.
To make it even more clear what I'm after, this is the SQL that I'm expecting:
SELECT Products.*, Categories.*
FROM Products INNER JOIN Categories ON Products.CategoryId = Categories.Id
at least that's what I think it should be (again, I'm not that good at database design or queries).
I can't figure out which kind of mapping I need for this. I suppose I need to map it in the Product.hbm.xml file. But do I map the CategoryId as well? And how do I map the Category property?
It seems like I would need a 'one-to-many' relation since I have ONE category per product (or is this reasoning backward?) but it seems like there is no one-to-many mapping...
Thanks for any help!
Addition:
I tried to add the many-to-one relation in the Person mapping, but I keep getting an exception saying "Creating proxy failed", and in the inner exception "Ambiguous match found".
I should maybe mention I am using an old version of NHibernate (1.2 I think) because that is the only one I got running with MS Access due to it not finding the JetDriver in newer versions.
I've put the mapping files, classes, and code where the error occurs in screenshots because I can't figure out how to post XML code here... It keeps reading it as html tags and skipping half of it. Anyway.
The mappings:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmp7B5A.png
The classes:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmpF809.png
The loading code where the error occurs:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmp46B6.png
(As I said, the inner exception says "Ambiguous match found".
(Product in my example has been replaced by Person)
The Person and Category classes inherit Entity which is an abstract base class and defines the Id, Deleted, CreatedTime and UpdatedTime properties.
The code where the error occurs is in a generic 'manager' class (type parameter TEntity which must inherit Entity). It is simply supposed to load all entities with the Deleted attribute false. In this case, TEntity is 'Person'.
It works fine if I leave out the many-to-one Category mapping in the Person mapping, but then obviously the Category property is always null.
Oh yeah, sorry about the mix between C# and VB, the C# code is in a generic framework I use for multiple projects while the VB part is the actual implementation of that framework on my website and I just happened to use VB for that.
Help? Thanks!
In your Product class only needs to contain a Category object, you don't need a CategoryId property. Then in your Product mapping you need to have this entry
<many-to-one name="Category" column="CategoryId" />
UPDATE:
Your mappings appear to be missing the fully qualified name of the mapped class in the tag. See http://nhibernate.info/doc/nh/en/index.html#mapping-declaration-class
UPDATE 2:
See if this helps you NHibernate 1.2 in a .NET 4.0 solution
The 'Ambiguous match found' exception was caused by the project targeting .NET Framework 4, which does not seem to be compatible with NHibernate 1.2.1. I switched to 3.5 and that seems to solve that particular issue.
Now on to the next. As you can see, the Person class has a CategoryName property that should return the name of the current Category object, or an empty string if the category happens to be null. This is so I can databind a collection of Person objects to a grid, specifying 'CategoryName' as a property to bind a column to.
Apparently this does not work with NHibernate. Whenever I try to databind my collection of persons, I get this exception:
"Property accessor 'CategoryName' on object 'NHibernateWebTest.Database.Person' threw the following exception:'Could not initialize proxy - the owning Session was closed.'"
This occurs on the 'DataBind' method call in this code:
public virtual void LoadGrid()
{
if (this.Grid == null) return;
this.Grid.DataSource = this.Manager.Load();
this.Grid.DataBind();
}
(This is an ASP.NET project and 'Grid' is a GridView)
'this.Manager' returns an existing instance of NHibernateEntityManager, and I've already shown its Load method before, it contains this:
public virtual EntityCollection Load()
{
using (ISession session = this.GetSession())
{
var entities = session
.CreateCriteria(typeof (TEntity))
.Add(Expression.Eq("Deleted", false))
.List();
return new EntityCollection(entities);
}
}
(THere's some generic type parameters in there but this website seems to hide them (due to the html like tags I guess)... Sorry about that).
This may have something to do with NHibernate itself, as I said I'm completely new to this. When I call my Load method I would expect it to return an EntityCollection(Of Person) with all its properties already set. It seems I have to keep the ISession open while I am databinding for some reason..? That seems a little strange...
Can I get around this? Can I make my Load method simply return a collection of persons already fully loaded, so that I can access CategoryName whenever I want?
Wait... Is this lazy loading perhaps?