Is there any way to see how the relationships of an Entity were affected/changed inside of a ChangeInterceptor()? Here is an example using NorthWind Database, when you delete/remove an Order Entity from an Employee Entity where the relationship is one-to-many, one Employee has many Orders, how can detect an Order was removed from the Employee Entity. I know using the ObjectStateEntry class you can call GetModifiedProperties() to see what Properties changed, but how do we see what Collections/Associations changed?. Does it have something to do with the RelationshipManager?
[ChangeInterceptor("Employees"]
public void OnChangeEmployees(Employee employee, UpdateOperations operations)
{
//I'm using EntityFramework 4.1
//We have to dropdown the ObjectContext to detect IA, Independant Association, changes
ObjectContext ctx = ((IObjectContextAdapter)this.CurrentDataSource).ObjectContext;
ObjectStateEntry entry = ctx.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(employee);
//What do I do here for detecting relationship changes.. I.E and Order was added?
}
Thanks in advance.
Instead of using a ChangeInterceptor... Just implement the SavingChanges event handler on the ObjectContext. This article explains how to see if an Entity's relationship was affected.
Related
I have a strange requirement, and do not know how to solve it.
I have a context that holds all my main entities.
One of the entity is "customers".
Now i have an other application with they're entities in a separate context.
However that application should be able to access the customers from the main context.
I don't mind if there is no relation. I know the key of the customer and can access it manually.
I thought about something like this: (example is pseudo vb.net)
Imports MainModels
Namespace OtherApplication
Dim myMainContext as new MainModels.MainContext
Dim myAppContext as new AppContext
Dim myOrder as order = AppContext.Orders.Find(OrderIdent)
Dim myCustomer as customer = MainModels.MainContext.Customers.Find(myOrder.CustomerKey)
Is there a common way of solving those kind of requirements?
Reason for me to separate the two context is, that the MainContext is not going to change anymore, while the AppContext could be extended. There could even be a App2Context for some other application.
I have found following post:
Choosing the subset by exposing foreign keys
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2008/11/24/working-with-large-models-in-entity-framework-part-1.aspx
Found similar question:
Entity Framework: Multiple models - the current state of thinking?
I have two objects - ContentPage, which has a collection of ChildLinks.
ContentPage
-----------
ID
Title
ChildLink
----------
ID
ParentPageID [ContentPage]
ChildPageID [ContentPage]
Priority
The ContentPage.ChildLinks property utilises the 2nd level cache. I am using Fluent NH to configure Nhibernate, and using Nhibernate 3.1. Cache is set as 'Read-Write' both for the collection, and the 'ChildLink' class.
I've noticed that whenever I delete a ChildLink, the collection cache is not being invalidated. Thus, when I call the ContentPage.ChildLinks, I get an error:
no row with the given identifier exists
I've turned off the cache, and it works well. Shouldn't the cache be automatically invalidated? I am using SysCache as the cache provider, and MySQL as the database.
Thanks in advance!
I had the same problem and I can across the following article which solved my problem:
Inverse Mapped Collections and NHibernate's Second-Level Cache
Basically if you have mapped your collections as inverse, when you delete the child item you also have to make sure to explicitly remove it from the parent collection or the cache state will be invalid after you delete the child. The first thing to check is if the relationship really needs to be inverse.
Assuming inverse is necessary or desired, and using your example:
Instead of only something like:
Session.Delete(ChildLink);
You have to do:
ContentPage.ChildLinks.Remove(ChildLink);
ChildLink.ParentPage = null;
Session.Delete(ChildLink);
You also might need to explicitly save your ContentPage object at this point as well, it depends on your Session flush settings.
I use methods on my entities for managing such inverse relationships, for example:
public ChildLink
{
public ContentPage ParentPage {get;set;}
public void AddToPage(ContentPage addTo)
{
addTo.ChildLinks.Add(this);
this.ParentPage = addTo;
}
public void RemoveFromPage()
{
ParentPage.ChildLinks.Remove(this);
this.ParentPage = null;
}
}
And then when deleting a child object:
ChildLink.RemoveFromPage();
Session.Delete(ChildLink);
I have a product table that has a many-to-many relation to itself (using a two-column many-to-many table) and I have set it up in Fluent NHibernate with the following code:
public class ProductConfiguration : ClassMap<Product>
{
public ProductConfiguration()
{
Table("Product");
Id(p => p.Id).GeneratedBy.Guid();
Map(p => p.Name).Not.Nullable().Length(254);
Map(p => p.Description).Not.Nullable().Length(1000);
Map(p => p.CreatedAt).Not.Nullable();
HasManyToMany(p => p.CrossSell)
.Table("ProductCrossSell")
.ParentKeyColumn("Id")
.ChildKeyColumn("ProductId");
}
}
My MVC application has two pages that uses this setup:
Index - Uses a generic repository GetAll method to display all products.
Detail - Uses a generic repository GetById method to display one product and any related cross sell products setup in the many-to-many realation.
It looks like NHibernate is set to LazyLoad the many-to-many by default so when I fire up the application and watch it in profiler I can see that it does LazyLoad the many-to-many with the following alert "Use of implicit transactions is discouraged".
How do I get rid of this alert? I couldn't find any information on how to wrap a LazyLoad inside a transaction to get rid the alert. Is it even possible?
Is there a way to not lazyload this by telling NHibernate that whenever I ask for GetById make sure to join the tables a get everything in one query? I tried using .Fetch.Join() in the many-to-many mapping but that also affected my GetAll query which now displays a joined result set as well which is incorrect.
What is the best apprach for this kind of simple scenario?
Thanks
The way to get rid of the warning is to access the object graph and fully populate the UI elements inside a single transaction.
Not by configuration. You can create an HQL query that eager fetches the association and use that query for a specific view. I would stick with lazy loading and not make that optimization unless needed. The HQL would be:
return session.CreateQuery("from ProductionConfiguration pc join fetch pc.CrossSell where pc.Id = ?")
.SetGuid(0, id)
.List<ProductConfiguration>();
All collections are lazily loaded in NHibernate by default.
You must be triggering loading with a call of some kind (maybe even with the debugger watches)
I ve got the following setup:
public class ParentEntity
{
public ICollection<ChildEntity> {get; set; }
}
public class ChildEntity
{
// do i need to the parent here?
}
I managed to save the ParentEntity and cascaded the save to the added child entities which were saved as well. But in the db table the ParentId reference of the child was set to allow NULL. When setting it to NOT NULL the save failes since the ParentId in the child table is NULL.
What's happening there? ;)
When
You should map both sides of the relationship normally, and when you add a child to the parent's collection, you should also set the parent property on the child. Normally you would achieve this by writing a method like this:
public void AddChild(ChildEntity child)
{
this.Children.Add(child);
child.Parent = this;
}
NHibernate persists the ParentId column in the Child table based on the mapped property in the ChildEntity class. The definition of the one-to-many relationship merely allows NHibernate to load the collection from the database based on values in this column
I am having the same issue and need this to either have nHibernate expose the foreign key column, or do it in class via collection.
Problem: nHibernate creates the collection object (IList, for example) and you can not override the or listen to the add events of basic collections.
This becomes an issue only because it is required by the WCF RIA Services framework.
I have a simple model class (Part), which pulls from it's information from a single table (t_Part).
I would like a subclass of this model called (ProducedPart), that would still utilize NHibernate's caching mechanisms, but would only be instances of (Part) that have a foreign key relationship in a table called "t_PartProduction". I do not need to have a model for this second table.
I only need a read-only version of ProducedPart
I could always implement a Facade/Repository over this, but I was hoping to setup a mapping that would pull "t_Part" joined with "PartProduction" when I asked for "ProducedPart" in NH.
Is this the wrong way to use NH?
Edit
So, the SQL would look something like
SELECT p.*
FROM t_Part p
INNER JOIN t_PartProduction pp ON pp.PartID = p.PartID
WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009'
I believe what you are looking for is a joined subclass. In FNH, it will look something like:
public class PartMap : ClassMap<Part>
{
public PartMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id)
JoinedSubClass<ProducedPart>("PartID", sub => {
sub.Map(x => x.Name);
sub.Map(x => x.ProductionYear);
});
}
}
In order have NHibernate cache the results, you will need to have the subclass mapped (and if you didn't map it, you wouldn't be able to get NH to load it in the first place).
Bringing in some context from the FNH groups thread, it will not explicitly be read-only though. In my opinion, making things read-only is not an appropriate thing for NHibernate to manage. This is better controlled by the database and connections (i.e. creating a connection to the database that only has SELECT permissions on the tables/views being accessed). See my answer to a previous SO question about readonly sessions in NHibernate for more of my thoughts on the matter.
The key here is using both the where and mutable elements of the class definition for NHibernate Mappings.
Using Fluent NHibernate, this looks like:
public Part()
{
WithTable("t_Part");
Id(i => i.Id).ColumnName("PartID");
Map(m => m.Name).ColumnName("Part");
SetAttribute("where", "PartID IN ( SELECT pp.PartID FROM t_PartProduction pp WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009' ) ");
ReadOnly();
}
No, this is perfectly possible. Look in the NHibernate documentation for the "table per subclass" model of inheritance. It will actually implement this as a LEFT JOIN, so that when you load a Part, it creates an instance of either your Part or your ProducedPart class depending on whether the other row is present. You'll find documentation on nhibernate.info.
I'm not sure you could make ProducedPart read-only doing this though.
I'm assuming from this:
WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009'
that you want the subclass only where the production year is 2009, i.e. if when there is a record in t_PartProduction for a different year, you want this Part treated as a plain Part object, not a ProducedPart, then you could consider creating a view definition within your database that is a filtered version of t_PartProduction, then making your subclass join to this view rather than the base table.