I've tried reading some previous answers but it's not clear whether or not any of them apply to my situation, as far as I can see. Most of the questions seem to refer to web applications. I figure I'm better off stating my requirements and going from there instead of trying to reverse-engineer advice meant for a different situation. I'm essentially asking two questions:
What does (Fluent) NHibernate support that would, in principle, allow me to achieve the requirements? I'd prefer to use the Fluent API if possible;
What am I going to have to write myself to develop a working solution?
Broadly, the requirements are as follows:
What I'd like to do is use FNH to persist and rehydrate models for a desktop application that would have roughly the same usage model as MS Office, for example - that is, work is kept as self-contained files which are loaded into a local instance of the application.
The current version of the application must be able to import files from all previous versions and preserve all information except that which is declared to the user to be unsupported; by 'import' I mean 'transcribe the model information contained in file A into new file B such that file B is fully compatible with the current version, beside that which is declared to be unsupported.'
The current version of the application must be able to export a current model to be compliant with only the most recent issue of the previous major version of the application. It is not required to supply legacy compatibility with any older revisions of the previous major version.
The nature of the product is such that updates to the file format happen fairly frequently - aim to be able to release to the user every six months or so if necessary as a ballpark figure, and are changed in development much more frequently than that.
I have no objection to writing code to handle this, provided that:
The coding does not take an inordinate amount of time for arbitrarily complicated changes to the schema;
I am able to verify whether or not the translation between versions is complete by calling the FNH API through unit tests;
I can verify that any given model will round-trip correctly between versions and only lose data which is declared to the user to be unsupported between product versions;
So, to summarise:
What, if anything, does Fluent NHibernate supply to enable this kind of use-case?
Can the requirements be readily satisfied as they are, or will I have to make them more specific and constrained?
What should I investigate as to coding myself?
I would suggest using a document database, something like RavenDB, MongoDb etc, for what you are trying to do. I think these would be a better fit than trying to force a RDBMS (sql server, oracle etc) and consequently nHibernate to do something that its not all that good at. not to say that it can't, but you will end up jumping through all sort of hoops to accomplish what you are asking.
One thing to note is that Fluent Nhibernate only puts a Fluent API over the Class Mapping of nhibernate.
Related
I have been developing a network security application for several years now, as the lead developer at my company. It is a split-architecture design, where one component resides on the customer's network, and the other component in our own cloud. We have developed our own custom versioning system that keeps both sides synchronized at each patch (per customer), but until now it has only allowed incremental changes to be made, and rollbacks are not possible.
We'd like to move to a forkable git-like solution for our code, so that we can develop and test multiple features simultaneously, but the thing that's holding us back from that is our database. We use PostgreSQL (currently 9.3.12), and I've written a custom script to calculate the deltas between the "old" and "new" database structure, each time we "make a patch". It spits out a list of SQL commands necessary to update the "old" database structure to look like the "new", including tables, functions, sequences, triggers, you name it. It's very elegant and pretty much never fails anymore, even with complicated deltas.
However, I realize that in order to have a git-like solution for this (check-out, check-in, merge changes into test and production code, etc.) while also keeping database changes in sync with application code, we'll need to have something a lot more advanced than just "old" vs "new". Note that we don't need to modify database data for the most part, only table structure, which is altered in place on existing customer databases.
So my question is this: Any ideas for a git-like SQL version control system, which allows forking and merging, and can be easily kept in sync with application code changes? Our custom tool is already a bit more advanced than some open-source tools we've looked into (such as sqlt-diff), and tools like Red Gate are a bit out of our price range as a startup (not to mention that I haven't heard anybody mention forking in context with Red Gate). We're open to writing a custom tool, if that's what we need to do, but we're scratching our heads about where to start with something like that. We know how to calculate deltas, but we don't know how to manage all those things across different forks.
Free or open-source tools, frameworks we can adapt, or general guiding principles for building such tools are all appreciated!
One way of solving this problem is with migrations. A couple of lightweight tools, but there are many others:
http://sequel.jeremyevans.net/rdoc/files/doc/migration_rdoc.html
https://flywaydb.org/
Rather than calculating deltas between versions after the fact, migrations can be used to evolve the schema in a controlled way. You can create feature-specific migrations that can be tracked (and forked/merged) along with the rest of your code.
Depending on how fancy you want to get, you may need to extend the default naming/numbering schemes.
I need to be able to save all the data that gets updated like so.
User inserts a car Model (Make, Type, Year). Comes back and Updates the Year. I need to be able to save both so they have a history of all the work that they did. What is the best way to do that?
There are a number of ways to do this. One way is to write some SQL triggers and do it entirely in the database. Have a look here for some clues:
Another way is to do the auditing within the Entity Framework code. There is a nuget package called AuditDbContext with the source on Codeplex.
You need to decide if you want to do the auditing in EF or in SQL. Obviously if you need to audit everything and you might sometimes access the database from different applications which don't use the same EF datalayer (e.g. different technologies, etc), then SQL triggers might well be the way to go.
Maybe (if you are facing the "history" issue more often) the CQRS pattern is of interest for you; a good primer, Microsoft on CQRS. There is a framework build on .NET for this pattern (I have not tried it yet): NCQRS.
If you really just want the requirement in your question fulfilled now and you are using SQL Server 2010 or later, then Change Tracking may be another option. I would prefer that to triggers (but in the end all such dark processing logging solutions introduce additional risk).
I may be going mental, but I can not find any api reference material for nhibernate. I've found plenty of manuals, tutorials, ebooks etc but no api reference. I saw the chm file on the nhibernate sourceforge page, but it doesn't seem to work on any of my PCs (different OSes)
Can someone please point me in the right direction?
I just found this one:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141001063046/http://elliottjorgensen.com/nhibernate-api-ref/index.html
It doesn't seem to be official, but at least it looks like an API reference... unlike the official reference, which mostly describes concepts and mappings without any information about classes and members.
If you're on Windows, get ILSpy and point it at NHibernate.dll. It's not quite the same as real API documentation, but it's not half bad.
There is no class references publicly available on Internet as far as I know. You may build it from the source. Clone them, build the NHibernate.sln solution, then go into doc folder, ensure you have prerequisites indicated in reference\readme.txt file, and run nant doc. This will generate the class reference in the build folder.
Otherwise the most commonly used API are not wide, and most of them are xml documented with intellisens working in Visual Studio. The reference documentation has the advantage of giving more context, probably helping avoiding pitfalls like believing ISession.Update is to be used for updating entities (this is wrong, you do not need it unless you use detached entities, or entities coming from another session).
Official documentation reference is on https://nhibernate.info.
Sub-links:
Global documentation list
Reference (What I mostly use, especially following sub parts.)
Configuration
Mapping - basic / entities. (Add mapping xsd definition file in any or your solution folders for letting VS know it and give you intellisens in your hbm mappings.)
Mapping - collections
Querying - general. Do not miss the named queries feature in The IQuery interface.
Querying APIs:
HQL. I mostly use HQL with named queries, in mappings, for queries not dynamically built. They get parsed and validated when building session factory, which normally occurs at application startup, so it is almost as good as compile time validation. Checks log4net logs to get detailed reasons of named query parsing failures.
Criteria API. I view it as the historical way of dynamically building queries in code, to be preferred over constructing HQL strings.
QueryOver API. Based on Criteia API, with lambda expression support for having compile time validation of queried entities namings. Should be preferred over Criteria API in my opinion.
Linq API. Great for dynamically built queries. Bear in mind that its implementation translates your queries to HQL. With complex queries, it may generate unsupported HQL constructs. Having knowledge of HQL capabilities allows a better understanding of how to write a supported Linq query for complex cases. (By example, for a complex order by, better use an explicit linq sub-query in the OrderBy rather than using a collection mapped on your queried entity.)
Native SQL. Well, quite self-explanatory. To be used by example when you need some SQL special feature not available through other querying APIs (SQL server full-text, select for xml, ...), and that you do not wish to extend those other APIs. You may also call stored procedures. When using native SQL, I favor SQL named queries.
Modifying data, from Updating objects to Flush, and Exception handling.
Performances.
Batch fetching. About this, you may read my post here for a detailed explanation of why lazy loading can be very efficient with NHibernate, thanks to batch fetching. This single feature will always cause me to prefer NHibernate over Entity Framework, till it ceases being lacking in EF.
Second level cache. Another great NHibernate feature, lacking native support in EF. Beware, you must use transactions for leveraging this. It allows NHibernate to automatically evict cached entries for you as you change data through your application process. Without transactions, NHibernate will disable the second level cache as soon as you start changing data, for avoiding letting the cache yield you stale data.
Interceptors. This is one way among many allowing to customize NHibernate inner working. NHibernate is very strong at allowing you to extend it. You may also add your own HQL extensions as here, your own linq2NH extension as here (all are answers from me). And there are other ways, see this list for linq2NH extensibility solutions.
Moreover, a class reference will very likely be near the Hibernate one. There is so many internals APIs supporting its implementation that is not much usable.
Why are such API not hidden (internal, private, ...)? Not hiding them is required for allowing the great extensibility capabilities of NHibernate. Those capabilities are a must have in my opinion. In contrast, it is so hard to fix some other .Net project shortcomings, due to lacks of extensibility they suffer. (MVC FileResult and the TweakDispositionAsInline I had to use instead of just being able of overriding some method, or try extend linq-to-entities, see this.)
there is a good book that covers a lot, and there is the html documentation on the site (which also comes as a book)
(the book would be manning - nHibernate in Action - a little outdated, but a good start)
Here is the link to the online reference
I work in a software and hardware development farm. Today one of my colleagues told me that NHibernate is only useful for small projects, and for complex or large scale projects it must be avoided. Also, it makes code harder to change.
Are those statements true?
Ebay uses Hibernate (the Java version that NHibernate is ported from). I don't consider that a small project.
As far as changing code goes, consider this: Let's assume we need to add a new property to an object.
Here is what has to be done with a hand-rolled data access layer:
Add the column to the db table.
Change every stored procedure that
deals with that object / table.
This is usually several stored
procedures in my experience.
Change the code in the mapping layer
Add the property to the Object
Here is what has to be done with NHibernate:
Add the column to the db table.
Add the property to the HBM file
Add the property to the object.
Have to agree with Daniel Augur on the first point.
On the second, "does it make code harder to change?", I'll provide a general view. Any time you use something ready-rolled you're going to run into restrictions that might not be easier to overcome. Even when the source is available, you may not wish to modify it for fear of deviating to the point of a breaking change.
Part of a software developer's job is determining whether the merits outweigh the drawbacks with 3rd party code.
Assume Hibernate for the ORM.
I'm not sure how to ask this. I want to build an application that can replace part of another. For example, say I have an application with various modules, called the "big" app. This application may handle HR, financial, purchases, skill sets, etc. But maybe, for whatever reason, I don't like the skill set module, but I like the rest of the application. I want to build an app that uses the same database that the rest of the "big" app uses but use my software as the front end for that piece.
I could build my app and have it hit the database directly with no ORM. My question is is there an advantage to using an ORM here. I'm thinking there is because if the "big" app goes away and another app is purchased, we could continue to use my version of skill set because I am using hibernate instead of hitting things directly. I'm still learning but I thought that my application used objects that I named and that in the case I just described I'd have to change my mapping files only or/and my code very little.
Here is another example. I have a legacy application and legacy database. It uses database X. I decide that I no longer like the old terminal emulator application that is used to get the data and that I want a graphical version. I can use hibernate with my application and when I finally decide to get rid of the legacy database and change to the latest Oracle or SQL Server, I can do so with minimal headache? Or is my database going to change so much that it wouldn't have matter anyway (I'm suggesting that upon changing to a new database more information will want to be captured)?
I was hoping for comments, if I am misunderstanding why hibernate/ORM might or might not be a benefit.
Thank you.
I do not think you will have a huge benefit frmo hibernate if the database schema changes to something completely different, you might have to change more than just your mapping - especially if more "structure" is added to the database (tables, column and such schema things). That said, if the database was structured mostly the same way, but lets say just the column names and tables names changes and a couple of tables are merged or something like that - you can get by with just changing your mapping.
But I would really recommend using hbernate for database agnosticity, that's is a pretty easy path.
AND then just because it doesn't exactly helps you if your entire database is changed, it such an incredible amount of other forces, that I would choose that over direct DB access most of the time.
Lastly you could think about using a service-layer such as the repository pattern that abstracs away the data access, so the business of your appilcation wouldn't need to change if the database changes.
Switching from one DBMS to another (ala Oracle to SQL Server) is one thing that using an ORM would certainly make much easier.
As for switching from one "big app" to another "big app", I doubt if using an ORM would help that much. It's likely that the database structure and business logic would be different enough that you would find yourself rewriting lots of code anyways.
You can generate domain objects with Hibernate Tools, if you do that than it will be painless and fast. however if you write all the objects by hand you will die. i think its good idea to rewrite part of the app and get to know hibernate better.
I think it's generally a bad idea to make any decision based on the
unknowns versus the knowns. Whether you're deciding on a data
access/persistence strategy, what car to buy, or what college to go
to, you should put the most weight on the things you know you want
today, rather than worrying about what may or may not happen tomorrow.
So when considering ORMs, I wouldn't worry too much about things such as apps
"going away" or DBMSs changing (unless that's either already been talked about, or
there's a history of this in your company). I'm not saying that these aren't things that will never happen, but rather that they should take a back seat to the generally much more important considerations of maintainability, performance, and developer productivity.
So in short, choose an ORM based on its ability to solve the problems and satisfy the requirements that you have today.