Abstract class and NHibernate - nhibernate

I have a class:
class abstract Car {
...
}
class ConcreteCar {
...
}
class AnotherConcreteCar {
...
}
Yet it seems very confusing as to how to map these in NHibernate. I do need to be able to gather a:
List<Car> cars;
for (Car car in cars) {
...
}
I also would like to use a generator (what is the alternative?) for generating the next carID. There is join-subclass, which disallows that, and frankly, it is all confusing me. It seems I will have to go back to making Car an interface, which isn't really what I want.
Also, no matter what method I use (say I just make Car a superclass and the other subclasses), if I query the database:
from item in session.Query<Car>()
select item;
will I have to typecast the objects into their subclass types to use the subclass properties and methods? Will that work? Does NHibernate actually figure out the subclass and create objects of the subclass, or does it just create objects of the superclass that cannot be converted into their subclasses?

I've implemented this kind of approach already a while ago but I remember it was working in my particular case.
I assume that Car is the base table with some shared columns, if so then you could map your entities in the following way (I'm using Fluent NHibernate):
CarMap:
public class CarMap : ClassMap<Car> { ... }
ConcreteCarMap:
public class ConcreteCarMap : SubclassMap<ConcreteCar>
{
public ConcreteCarMap()
{
Extends<CarMap>();
// other properties
// Map(x => x.Property).Not.Nullable();
}
}
Having that you could execute your query:
from item in session.Query<Car>() select item;
And indeed you would have to typecast returned objects into their subclass types in order to access the subclass properties and methods but NHibernate would be intelligent enough to construct them properly for you.
NHibernate would achieve that using this kind of syntax (pseudo sql):
select
-- all columns from Car
-- all columns from ConcreteCar
-- other columns from subclasses
case
when f1.SubId is not null then 1
when f2.SubId is not null then 2
when f3.SubId is not null then 3
when f4.SubId is not null then 4
when f5.SubId is not null then 5
when f0.Id is not null then 0
end as type
from Car f0
left outer join ConcreteCar f1 on f0.Id = f1.SubId
-- other joins
So depending on the actual number of implemented subclasses this can have an impact on the performance.
I hope this answers your question.

it's quite possible.
see inheritance mapping.
You Can use session.Query<Car> and nHib will know to create objects of the appropriate subclass.
let me know if you have any more questions.

Yes it works!
This is my code:
public abstract class Vote:EntityBase
public class VoteComment:Vote,IVote
public class VotePhoto:Vote,IVote
internal List<Vote> Test()
{
return session.Query<Vote>().ToList();
}
and this is the result:

Related

How to decide whether use IS A or HAS A Relation

public class B {
public String getMe()
{
return "Some";
}
}
Assume that i have a above class , by which parameters should we decide what to use ?? Whether is a or Has a Relation ??
HAS - A
public class A {
public static void main(String args[])
{
B b = new B();
System.out.println(b.getMe());
}
}
or
public class A extends B
{
public static void main(String args[])
{
A b = new A();
System.out.println(b.getMe());
}
}
Depends on the logical relation. It just needs to make sense.
Example:
Lets say you have Animal classes.
So you have these classes: Animal, Dog, Cat , Leopard, Fur, Feet
Cat and Dog IS A Animal.
Leopard IS A Cat.
Animal HAS A Fur, Feet.
In a nutshell:
IS A relationship means you inherit and extend the functionality of the base class.
HAS A relationship means the class is using another class, so it has it as a member.
There are 4 types of relations possible :
Generalization (IS A) : Which is implemented using inheritance like you did above. It's used when class A has all the same feature of B and you want to add some more features. So you simply extend B and add the new features.
Aggregation (HAS A) : This is a bit weaker relation than generalization. You use this relation when the object of A owns objects of B or is composed of objects of B (may be among other objects of other classes). The first type is called shared aggregation, the second is called composition. In aggregation and composition there usually an object controlling the life of the other object (it instantiates it and destroys it as it needs).
Association: In association, the classes simply know about each other's so it's weaker than aggregation. The objects do not control each other's life.
Usage : It's the weakest relation of two classes and it means simply that one class may appear as a type in a method parameter or is used internally in code.
In your example, it should be aggregation (HAS A) if A has a field of type B. But if it just creates instance of B to be used in code internally and the object is disposed from memory when the scope ends then it's neither IS A nor HAS A. It's just a usage relation.
In simple term:
"is a" represent the inheritence/extends
"has a" represents the delegation/association
for example:
House is a Building (inheritance)
House has a door(s) (association)
Here is one of the best resources I used for understanding OOP: http://chortle.ccsu.edu/CS151/cs151java.html (part 6 & 10)
is-a is like for example, a Dog is an Animal or a Cat is an Animal or It is like "a person is that-kind of a person". Is-a relationships have other objects' properties, like here "Animal" is a class(object) and etc.
The has-a relationship is like, an object has its own properties, for example, Fish has Gills or pants have pockets ... something like that.

Accept Interface into Collection (Covariance) troubles with nHibernate

I am using Fluent nHibernate for my persistence layer in an ASP.NET MVC application, and I have come across a bit of a quandry.
I have a situation where I need to use an abstraction to store objects into a collection, in this situation, an interface is the most logical choice if you are looking at a pure C# perspective.
Basically, an object (Item) can have Requirements. A requirement can be many things. In a native C# situation, I would merely accomplish this with the following code.
interface IRequirement
{
// methods and properties neccessary for evaluation
}
class Item
{
virtual int Id { get; set; }
virtual IList<IRequirement> Requirements { get; set; }
}
A crude example. This works fine in native C# - however because the objects have to be stored in a database, it becomes a bit more complicated than that. Each object that implements IRequirement could be a completely different kind of object. Since nHibernate (or any other ORM that I have discovered) cannot really understand how to serialize an interface, I cannot think of, for the life of me, how to approach this scenario. I mean, I understand the problem.
This makes no sense to the database/orm. I understand completely why, too.
class SomeKindOfObject
{
virtual int Id { get; set; }
// ... some other methods relative to this base type
}
class OneRequirement : SomeKindOfObject, IRequirement
{
virtual string Name { get; set; }
// some more methods and properties
}
class AnotherKindOfObject
{
virtual int Id { get; set; }
// ... more methods and properties, different from SomeKindOfObject
}
class AnotherRequirement : AnotherKindOfObject, IRequirement
{
// yet more methods and properties relative to AnotherKindOfObject's intentive hierarchy
}
class OneRequirementMap : ClassMap<OneRequirement>
{
// etc
Table("OneRequirement");
}
class AnotherRequirementMap : ClassMap<AnotherRequirement>
{
//
Table("OtherRequirements");
}
class ItemMap : ClassMap<Item>
{
// ... Now we have a problem.
Map( x => x.Requirements ) // does not compute...
// additional mapping
}
So, does anyone have any ideas? I cannot seem to use generics, either, so making a basic Requirement<T> type seems out. I mean the code works and runs, but the ORM cannot grasp it. I realize what I am asking here is probably impossible, but all I can do is ask.
I would also like to add, I do not have much experience with nHibernate, only Fluent nHibernate, but I have been made aware that both communities are very good and so I am tagging this as both. But my mapping at present is 100% 'fluent'.
Edit
I actually discovered Programming to interfaces while mapping with Fluent NHibernate that touches on this a bit, but I'm still not sure it is applicable to my scenario. Any help is appreciated.
UPDATE (02/02/2011)
I'm adding this update in response to some of the answers posted, as my results are ... a little awkward.
Taking the advice, and doing more research, I've designed a basic interface.
interface IRequirement
{
// ... Same as it always was
}
and now I establish my class mapping..
class IRequirementMap : ClassMap<IRequirement>
{
public IRequirementMap()
{
Id( x => x.Id );
UseUnionSubclassForInheritanceMapping();
Table("Requirements");
}
}
And then I map something that implements it. This is where it gets very freaky.
class ObjectThatImplementsRequirementMap : ClassMap<ObjectThatImplementsRequirement>
{
ObjectThatImplementsRequirementMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id); // Yes, I am base-class mapping it.
// other properties
Table("ObjectImplementingRequirement");
}
}
class AnotherObjectThatHasRequirementMap : ClassMap<AnotherObjectThatHasRequirement>
{
AnotherObjectThatHasRequirementMap ()
{
Id(x => x.Id); // Yes, I am base-class mapping it.
// other properties
Table("AnotheObjectImplementingRequirement");
}
}
This is not what people have suggested, but it was my first approach. Though I did it because I got some very freaky results. Results that really make no sense to me.
It Actually Works... Sort Of
Running the following code yields unanticipated results.
// setup ISession
// setup Transaction
var requirements = new <IRequirement>
{
new ObjectThatImplementsRequirement
{
// properties, etc..
},
new AnotherObjectThatHasRequirement
{
// other properties.
}
}
// add to session.
// commit transaction.
// close writing block.
// setup new session
// setup new transaction
var requireables = session.Query<IRequirable>();
foreach(var requireable in requireables)
Console.WriteLine( requireable.Id );
Now things get freaky. I get the results...
1
1
This makes no sense to me. It shouldn't work. I can even query the individual properties of each object, and they have retained their type. Even if I run the insertion, close the application, then run the retrieval (so as to avoid the possibility of caching), they still have the right types. But the following does not work.
class SomethingThatHasRequireables
{
// ...
public virtual IList<IRequirement> Requirements { get; set; }
}
Trying to add to that collection fails (as I expect it to). Here is why I am confused.
If I can add to the generic IList<IRequirement> in my session, why not in an object?
How is nHibernate understanding the difference between two entities with the same Id,
if they are both mapped as the same kind of object, in one scenario, and not the other?
Can someone explain to me what in the world is going on here?
The suggested approach is to use SubclassMap<T>, however the problem with that is the number of identities, and the size of the table. I am concerned about scalability and performance if multiple objects (up to about 8) are referencing identities from one table. Can someone give me some insight on this one specifically?
Take a look at the chapter Inheritance mapping in the reference documentation. In the chapter Limitations you can see what's possible with which mapping strategy.
You've chose one of the "table per concrete class" strategies, as far as I can see. You may need <one-to-many> with inverse=true or <many-to-any> to map it.
If you want to avoid this, you need to map IRequirement as a base class into a table, then it is possible to have foreign keys to that table. Doing so you turn it into a "table per class-hierarchy" or "table per subclass" mapping. This is of course not possible if another base class is already mapped. E.g. SomeKindOfObject.
Edit: some more information about <one-to-many> with inverse=true and <many-to-any>.
When you use <one-to-many>, the foreign key is actually in the requirement tables pointing back to the Item. This works well so far, NH unions all the requirement tables to find all the items in the list. Inverse is required because it forces you to have a reference from the requirement to the Item, which is used by NH to build the foreign key.
<many-to-any> is even more flexible. It stores the list in an additional link table. This table has three columns:
the foreign key to the Item,
the name of the actual requirement type (.NET type or entity name)
and the primary key of the requirement (which can't be a foreign key, because it could point to different tables).
When NH reads this table, it knows from the type information (and the corresponding requirement mapping) in which other tables the requirements are. This is how any-types work.
That it is actually a many-to-many relation shouldn't bother you, it only means that it stores the relation in an additional table which is technically able to link a requirement to more then one item.
Edit 2: freaky results:
You mapped 3 tables: IRequirement, ObjectThatImplementsRequirement, AnotherObjectThatHasRequirement. They are all completely independent. You are still on "table per concrete class with implicit polymorphism". You just added another table with containing IRequirements, which may also result in some ambiguity when NH tries to find the correct table.
Of course you get 1, 1 as result. The have independent tables and therefore independent ids which both start with 1.
The part that works: NHibernate is able to find all the objects implementing an interface in the whole database when you query for it. Try session.CreateQuery("from object") and you get the whole database.
The part that doesn't work: On the other side, you can't get an object just by id and interface or object. So session.Get<object>(1) doesn't work, because there are many objects with id 1. The same problem is with the list. And there are some more problems there, for instance the fact that with implicit polymorphism, there is no foreign key specified which points from every type implementing IRequirement to the Item.
The any types: This is where the any type mapping comes in. Any types are stored with additional type information in the database and that's done by the <many-to-any> mapping which stores the foreign key and type information in an additional table. With this additional type information NH is able to find the table where the record is stored in.
The freaky results: Consider that NH needs to find both ways, from the object to a single table and from the record to a single class. So be careful when mapping both the interface and the concrete classes independently. It could happen that NH uses one or the other table depending on which way you access the data. This may have been the cause or your freaky results.
The other solution: Using any of the other inheritance mapping strategies, you define a single table where NH can start reading and finding the type.
The Id Scope: If you are using Int32 as id, you can create 1 record each second for 68 years until you run out of ids. If this is not enough, just switch to long, you'll get ... probably more then the database is able to store in the next few thousand years...

Type conversion when iterating over a collection of super-type. Alternatives?

This is quite a common problem I run into. Let's hear your solutions. I'm going to use an Employee-managing application as an example:-
We've got some entity classes, some of which implement a particular interface.
public interface IEmployee { ... }
public interface IRecievesBonus { int Amount { get; } }
public class Manager : IEmployee, IRecievesBonus { ... }
public class Grunt : IEmployee /* This company sucks! */ { ... }
We've got a collection of Employees that we can iterate over. We need to grab all the objects that implement IRecievesBonus and pay the bonus.
The naive implementation goes something along the lines of:-
foreach(Employee employee in employees)
{
IRecievesBonus bonusReciever = employee as IRecievesBonus;
if(bonusReciever != null)
{
PayBonus(bonusReciever);
}
}
or alternately in C#:-
foreach(IRecievesBonus bonusReciever in employees.OfType<IRecievesBonus>())
{
PayBonus(bonusReciever);
}
We cannot modify the IEmployee interface to include details of the child type as we don't want to pollute the super-type with details that only the sub-type cares about.
We do not have an existing collection of only the subtype.
We cannot use the Visitor pattern because the element types are not stable. Also, we might have a type which implements both IRecievesBonus and IDrinksTea. Its Accept method would contain an ambiguous call to visitor.Visit(this).
Often we're forced down this route because we can't modify the super-type, nor the collection e.g. in .NET we may need to find all the Buttons on this Form via the child Controls collection. We may need to do something to the child types that depends on some aspect of the child type (e.g. the bonus amount in the example above).
Strikes me as odd that there isn't an "accepted" way to do this, given how often it comes up.
1) Is the type conversion worth avoiding?
2) Are there any alternatives I haven't thought of?
EDIT
Péter Török suggests composing Employee and pushing the type conversion further down the object tree:-
public interface IEmployee
{
public IList<IEmployeeProperty> Properties { get; }
}
public interface IEmployeeProperty { ... }
public class DrinksTeaProperty : IEmployeeProperty
{
int Sugars { get; set; }
bool Milk { get; set; }
}
foreach (IEmployee employee in employees)
{
foreach (IEmployeeProperty property in employee.Propeties)
{
// Handle duplicate properties if you need to.
// Since this is just an example, we'll just
// let the greedy ones have two cups of tea.
DrinksTeaProperty tea = property as DrinksTeaProperty;
if (tea != null)
{
MakeTea(tea.Sugers, tea.Milk);
}
}
}
In this example it's definitely worth pushing these traits out of the Employee type - particularly because some managers might drink tea and some might not - but we still have the same underlying problem of the type conversion.
Is it the case that it's "ok" so long as we do it at the right level? Or are we just moving the problem around?
The holy grail would be a variant on the Visitor pattern where:-
You can add element members without modifying all the visitors
Visitors should only visit types they're interested in visiting
The visitor can visit the member based on an interface type
Elements might implement multiple interfaces which are visited by different visitors
Doesn't involve casting or reflection
but I appreciate that's probably unrealistic.
I would definitely try to resolve this with composition instead of inheritance, by associating the needed properties/traits to Employee, instead of subclassing it.
I can give an example partly in Java, I think it's close enough to your language (C#) to be useful.
public enum EmployeeProperty {
RECEIVES_BONUS,
DRINKS_TEA,
...
}
public class Employee {
Set<EmployeeProperty> properties;
// methods to add/remove/query properties
...
}
And the modified loop would look like this:
foreach(Employee employee in employees) {
if (employee.getProperties().contains(EmployeeProperty.RECEIVES_BONUS)) {
PayBonus(employee);
}
}
This solution is much more flexible than subclassing:
it can trivially handle any combination of employee properties, while with subclassing you would experience a combinatorial explosion of subclasses as the number of properties grow,
it trivially allows you to change Employee properties runtime, while with subclassing this would require changing the concrete class of your object!
In Java, enums can have properties or (even virtual) methods themselves - I don't know whether this is possible in C#, but in the worst case, if you need more complex properties, you can implement them with a class hierarchy. (Even in this case, you are not back to square one, since you have an extra level of indirection which gives you the flexibility described above.)
Update
You are right that in the most general case (discussed in the last sentence above) the type conversion problem is not resolved, just pushed one level down on the object graph.
In general, I don't know a really satisfying solution to this problem. The typical way to handle it is using polymorphism: pull up the common interface and manipulate the objects via that, thus eliminating the need for downcasts. However, in cases when the objects in question do not have a common interface, what to do? It may help to realize that in these cases the design does not reflect reality well: practically, we created a marker interface solely to enable us to put a bunch of distinct objects into a common collection, but there is no semantical relationship between the objects.
So I believe in these cases the awkwardness of downcasts is a signal that there may be a deeper problem with our design.
You could implement a custom iterator that only iterates over the IRecievesBonus types.

NHibernate - how to query against subclass properties while returning the super class?

Using NHibernate; is it possible to query against a super class while performing restrictions at the subclass level?
For example (appologies for the psuedo-code):
Class A
Property Prop1
End Class
Class B
Inherits Class A
Property Prop2
End Class
Class C
Inherits Class A
Property Prop3
End Class
How would I perform a query as follows:
from A where Prop1 = 'foo' AND
((if A is B) then B.Prop2 = 'bar' OR
(if A is C) then C.Prop3 = 'bar')
Is something like this possible using Nhibernate.Linq? What about hql or the criteria API?
Since HQL and ICriteria are Domain-query tools i find it hard to expect such a functionality.
AFAIK the only close thing is using ICriteria's Expression.Sql() where you query the superclass but inject subclass specific fragments with pure sql. There, the expression would be like
crit.Add(
Expression.Sql(#"(({alias}.DiscrimCol = :subClassADiscrimVal AND {alias}.Col2 = :barVal)
OR ({alias}.DiscrimCol = :subClassBDiscrimVal AND {alias}.Col3 = :barVal))",
new object[] { "subA", "subB", "bar" },
new IType[] { NHibernateUtil.String,NHibernateUtil.String,NHibernateUtil.String } )
);
not nice but it works
The other way would be using an ISQLQuery which at least allows the SELECT part to be domain specific (and using .AddEntity()) so you can still select your managed superclass and the WHERE part contains subclass specific fragments
========= UPDATE ==========
On a second thought, there is a way to implement this via HQL or ICriteria but it more of a workaround and is less performant because it involves subqueries. example in ICriteria:
nhSes.CreateCriteria(typeof(Super))
.Add(
Restrictions.Disjunction()
.Add(Subqueries.PropertyIn("Id", DetachedCriteria.For(typeof(ChildA))
.SetProjection(Projections.Id())
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("ChildAProp", barVal))))
.Add(Subqueries.PropertyIn("Id", DetachedCriteria.For(typeof(ChildB))
.SetProjection(Projections.Id())
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("ChildBProp", barVal))))
)
i am quering each child, project its id and then select the super class, limiting the ids with IN from the projected child ids.

How do I implement multiple kinds of an object in OOP?

I have multiple kinds of an object, say Car for example.
Do I have each kind in an inherited class/subclass of Car?
Do I place these under a cartype namespace so as not to mess up the main namespace?
Then later when I need an array of cars, should I declare it as var currentCars():Car or var currentCars():Object? Would the former support any subclass of Car?
Specific answers are difficult because they really depend on the particulars of your problem space, but in general you would use subclasses of Car if all kinds of Car shared some functionality. E.g.:
public class Car {
public void Start() { }
}
And then you could have different types of Car:
public class Sedan : Car {
public void OpenAllFourDoors() { }
}
public class Coupe : Car {
public void OpenAllTwoDoors() { }
}
You don't generally need to put the class hierarchy into its own namespace, there are other sets of guidance for namespace definitions. Typically, expect namespaces to take the form of something like CompanyName.ProductName.ModuleName or something similar.
Later, when you need an array (or, more commonly, a collection) of cars, you would create a collection of Car. When you grab a reference from this collection, though, you won't be able to OpenAllFourDoors or OpenAllTwoDoors because you won't know which subclass of Car you're working with.
(Apologies for C#-centric syntax)
You can have an inifinite number of classes inheriting from your Car class as long as you don't have overriden methods that conflict.
As for namespaces, I usually put the classes that inherit from another one in the same namespace, not sure if not being in the same namespace works though.
Oh and when you need an array, you declare it just like any other data type.
You see, when you declare a class Car you create a data type Car.
So when you need to declare an array of cars, you go like this:
var currentCars():Car