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.
Related
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)
I'm a new NHibernate developer. I'm using attributes and not map files and I have configured the application to create the tables automatically.
I Have two classes , Group and User.
Withing the Group class I have a list of users
public class Group
{
[NHibernate.Mapping.Attributes.Id(Name = "GroupId")]
[NHibernate.Mapping.Attributes.Generator(Class = "guid")]
public virtual Guid GroupId { get; set; }
// What Attributes do I place here
public virtual List<User> Users { get; set; }
}
I can't find the right attributes so that there will be two tables that have one to many relation.
Can anyone help?
Thanks,
Ronny
[ManyToMany], [OneToMany] or [ManyToOne] (those linked docs are fairly useless though) depending on how you want it setup. Probably [OneToMany], and then the same on a User.
You could avoid the pain by using the Fluent NHibernate library instead, if you haven't already tried it.
I'm using S#arpArchitecture (ASP.NET MVC and Fluent NHibernate). I have an entity as follows:
public class User : Entity
{
public User(){}
public User(string firstName, string lastName)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
}
public virtual string FirstName { get; set; }
public virtual string LastName { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime? LastUpdate{ get; set; }
}
I will call the SaveOrUpdate method on my repository class that will persist this User object. It works. How would i persist the LastUpdate property automatically with the latest date and time? I could override the SaveOrUpdate method in my repository by always setting the LastUpdate property to the current date and time but that does not seem to be correct because if there's nothing changed in my entity, I don't think NHibernate will persist my object back to the DB and forcing the setting of this property will always make it persist back.
I only want this LastUpdate property set if something else has changed in my entity.
You should use an NHibernate Interceptor to accomplish this. Override OnFlushDirty in your interceptor implementation to set the LastUpdate property only when something has changed (i.e. your object is dirty).
Since you didn't specify your database type, I will take the liberty and add a solution for people using MySQL / MariaDB:
You can use the following in your fluent mapping class:
Map(y => y.LastUpdate).CustomSqlType("timestamp").Generated.Always();
This creates a MySQL TIMESTAMP column with a default value of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. Thus, if Nhibernate chooses to flush your entity, MySQL will make sure that the column is properly updated.
I'm pretty sure this does not play well with MSSQL as TIMESTAMPS are different beasts in MSSQL (here and here)
I'm going to point to another StackOverflow question that I think answers my question.
I have a question that I may be over thinking at this point but here goes...
I have 2 classes Users and Groups. Users and groups have a many to many relationship and I was thinking that the join table group_users I wanted to have an IsAuthorized property (because some groups are private -- users will need authorization).
Would you recommend creating a class for the join table as well as the User and Groups table? Currently my classes look like this.
public class Groups
{
public Groups()
{
members = new List<Person>();
}
...
public virtual IList<Person> members { get; set; }
}
public class User
{
public User()
{
groups = new Groups()
}
...
public virtual IList<Groups> groups{ get; set; }
}
My mapping is like the following in both classes (I'm only showing the one in the users mapping but they are very similar):
HasManyToMany<Groups>(x => x.Groups)
.WithTableName("GroupMembers")
.WithParentKeyColumn("UserID")
.WithChildKeyColumn("GroupID")
.Cascade.SaveUpdate();
Should I write a class for the join table that looks like this?
public class GroupMembers
{
public virtual string GroupID { get; set; }
public virtual string PersonID { get; set; }
public virtual bool WaitingForAccept { get; set; }
}
I would really like to be able to adjust the group membership status and I guess I'm trying to think of the best way to go about this.
I generally only like to create classes that represent actual business entities. In this case I don't think 'groupmembers' represents anything of value in your code. To me the ORM should map the database to your business objects. This means that your classes don't have to exactly mirror the database layout.
Also I suspect that by implementing GroupMembers, you will end up with some nasty collections in both your user and group classes. I.E. the group class will have the list of users and also a list of groupmembers which references a user and vice versa for the user class. To me this isn't that clean and will make it harder to maintain and propagate changes to the tables.
I would suggest keeping the join table in the database as you have suggested, and add a List of groups called waitingtoaccept in users and (if it makes sense too) add List of users called waitingtoaccept in groups.
These would then pull their values from your join-table in the database based on the waitingtoaccept flag.
Yes, sure you need another class like UserGroupBridge. Another good side-effect is that you can modify user membership and group members without loading potentially heavy User/Group objects to NHibernate session.
Cheers.