I got a legacy database which have about 10 identical tables (only name differs).
Is it possible to be able to use the same business entity for all tables without having to create several classes/mapping files?
You can use the entity-name feature if you are using NHibernate v2.1 or higher. It is poorly documented but I am actively using the feature. It has gotten hard to find the documentation on it but look here:
Section 5.3 in
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.2/reference/en/html/mapping.html#mapping-entityname
A couple of things to be aware of. You must now use entity-name instead of class name to refer to the objects. In general it is not an entirely transparent change moving from class names to entity names.
Session actions now require two parameters, for example:
_session.Save("MyEntity", myobject)
The entity-name controls what table the data goes into.
Some HQL queries do not work right anymore, sometimes you must use Criteria instead.
If you need a set of sample code I may be able post some, but far too busy at the moment. I suggest you look at the limited info you can find and set it up for a very simple object and multiple tables to learn how it all works. It does work.
You can create a base class with all the properties, but you still need to map them all.
For that, you can either use copy&paste, XML entities (see examle at http://nhibernate.info/doc/nh/en/index.html#inheritance-tableperconcreate-polymorphism), or a code-based mapping method (Fluent or ConfORM). They usually make reuse easier.
Related
I have two databases, Sales and Production. For a certain set of tables, the schema is exactly the same. I generated two contexts using the Database First method. I specified a different namespace for both.
However, the designer doesn't actually wrap the classes in SalesStore.Context.vb in a namespace. And when I add it manually, of course it gets lost the next time I make a change to the model.
And so I am getting a bunch of errors: 'multiple definitions with identical signatures'.
How can I change the model so that the namespace is attributed properly to the generated table classes?
TIA,
Miles
Use code-first from an existing database workflow. This will allow you to stich together the generated models and share entity types between DbContexts. It's a little bit of work, but once you ditch the EF designer, you'll never miss it.
Really newbie question coming up. Is there a standard (or good) way to deal with not needing all of the information that a database table contains loaded into every associated object. I'm thinking in the context of web pages where you're only going to use the objects to build a single page rather than an application with longer lived objects.
For example, lets say you have an Article table containing id, title, author, date, summary and fullContents fields. You don't need the fullContents to be loaded into the associated objects if you're just showing a page containing a list of articles with their summaries. On the other hand if you're displaying a specific article you might want every field loaded for that one article and maybe just the titles for the other articles (e.g. for display in a recent articles sidebar).
Some techniques I can think of:
Don't worry about it, just load everything from the database every time.
Have several different, possibly inherited, classes for each table and create the appropriate one for the situation (e.g. SummaryArticle, FullArticle).
Use one class but set unused properties to null at creation if that field is not needed and be careful.
Give the objects access to the database so they can load some fields on demand.
Something else?
All of the above seem to have fairly major disadvantages.
I'm fairly new to programming, very new to OOP and totally new to databases so I might be completely missing the obvious answer here. :)
(1) Loading the whole object is, unfortunately what ORMs do, by default. That is why hand tuned SQL performs better. But most objects don't need this optimization, and you can always delay optimization until later. Don't optimize prematurely (but do write good SQL/HQL and use good DB design with indexes). But by and large, the ORM projects I've seen resultin a lot of lazy approaches, pulling or updating way more data than needed.
2) Different Models (Entities), depending on operation. I prefer this one. May add more classes to the object domain, but to me, is cleanest and results in better performance and security (especially if you are serializing to AJAX). I sometimes use one model for serializing an object to a client, and another for internal operations. If you use inheritance, you can do this well. For example CustomerBase -> Customer. CustomerBase might have an ID, name and address. Customer can extend it to add other info, even stuff like passwords. For list operations (list all customers) you can return CustomerBase with a custom query but for individual CRUD operations (Create/Retrieve/Update/Delete), use the full Customer object. Even then, be careful about what you serialize. Most frameworks have whitelists of attributes they will and won't serialize. Use them.
3) Dangerous, special cases will cause bugs in your system.
4) Bad for performance. Hit the database once, not for each field (Except for BLOBs).
You have a number of methods to solve your issue.
Use Stored Procedures in your database to remove the rows or columns you don't want. This can work great but takes up some space.
Use an ORM of some kind. For .NET you can use Entity Framework, NHibernate, or Subsonic. There are many other ORM tools for .NET. Ruby has it built in with Rails. Java uses Hibernate.
Write embedded queries in your website. Don't forget to parametrize them or you will open yourself up to hackers. This option is usually frowned upon because of the mingling of SQL and code. Also, it is the easiest to break.
From you list, options 1, 2 and 4 are probably the most commonly used ones.
1. Don't worry about it, just load everything from the database every time: Well, unless your application is under heavy load or you have some extremely heavy fields in your tables, use this option and save yourself the hassle of figuring out something better.
2. Have several different, possibly inherited, classes for each table and create the appropriate one for the situation (e.g. SummaryArticle, FullArticle): Such classes would often be called "view models" or something similar, and depending on your data access strategy, you might be able to get hold of such objects without actually declaring any new class. Eg, using Linq-2-Sql the expression data.Articles.Select(a => new { a .Title, a.Author }) will give you a collection of anonymously typed objects with the properties Title and Author. The generated SQL will be similar to select Title, Author from Article.
4. Give the objects access to the database so they can load some fields on demand: The objects you describe here would usaly be called "proxy objects" and/or their properties reffered to as being "lazy loaded". Again, depending on your data access strategy, creating proxies might be hard or easy. Eg. with NHibernate, you can have lazy properties, by simply throwing in lazy=true in your mapping, and proxies are automatically created.
Your question does not mention how you are actually mapping data from your database to objects now, but if you are not using any ORM framework at the moment, do have a look at NHibernate and Entity Framework - they are both pretty solid solutions.
One thing that bothers me about nHibernate is that it is not 100% compile time tested.
If I rename a column in my database table, and I update the mapping file for that table, when I hit compile I should get errors in all my query code (hql/criteria whatever) of where I referenced that column name and how it is spelled wrong.
The whole point (for me anyway) of using an ORM was that database changes won't break my queries.
In other words, I will be notified at compile time of what needs to be fixed, instead of getting runtime errors etc.
To achieve what you want I think your best solution is to use a combination of Fluent NHibernate and nhlambdaextensions. Fluent NHibernate will give you type-safe checking on your mapping files (so if you change a property on your entity, the compiler will throw an error if you don't also change the property on your mapping class). The lambda function extensions will give you type-safe queries via the Criteria API (not HQL since that's just magic-strings SQL-with-objects).
Also to clarify your question, you said:
If I change a column (rename) in my
database table, and I update the
mapping file for that table, when I
hit compile I should get errors in all
my query code (hql/criteria whatever)
of where I referenced that column name
and how it is spelled wrong.
Just changing the database side should break nothing (assuming you also make the change in your XML mapping file). Your code does not reference the column="first_name" portion of the mapping, it references the name="FirstName" portion. If you do not change your entity, renaming a column (from "firstname" to "first_name", for example) in the database will not break your queries as long as you update your mapping file as well.
You should look at Castle ActiveRecord. I used this before and it allows you to not worry about the mapping files (.hml) as much. It lets you make your changes at the class level definitions, and the mappings files were generally untouched.
If you are writing bad queries, that sounds like a design problem, not an nHibernate problem.
You won't get errors providing the Property names haven't changed, as most people use HQL for their queries in NHibernate.However if you do change the Property names and not the HQL you will indeed get broken queries, e.g.:
FROM User Where User.Surname = 'bob'
Change the Surname property to Lastname and it'll break. It's a feature lacking in NHibernate but would make a good project for the contrib - a Subsonic style query interface. This a project sort of similar but still use HQL.
As mentioned above ActiveRecord and Fluent NHibernate are the closest to type checking with NHibernate. Both enforce that you inherit your classes from their base class, as you'd expect and ActiveRecord is not intended for production use - Ayende has said in a video that's meant to be a prototyping tool for NHibernate.
Hibernate uses dynamic byte code generation to create the mapping classes, based on the mapping configurations.
The fundamental point of ORM is to enable auto-magical mapping (bridge) between Objects and Relational systems. Thus: ORM.
if you want to strongly type your objects rather than using xml config which can cause alot of runtime issues if not properly tested, I would look into FluentNHibernate which has convention maps that allow you to map your classes to data in code. Made my life alot easier especially when first starting with NHibernate wish i had found it before i knew how to properly map using xml
Does NHibernate have the equivalent of the Java version's schema validator? In which case, you could add a step to your build process to build the session factory and run the validator-- building the session factory should also compile named queries, hence validating them too.
Hmm, looks like it supports something like that: http://nhibernate.info/blog/2008/11/22/nhibernate-schemavalidator.html
NB this means your build process will fail to work if your dev database is not available--- which I would regard as a bad thing.
I'm pretty much a newbie and I need to dig into this matter to write some college article so I need some bootstrap.
Here and there I read that NHibernate offers much more flexibility (compared with L2S) in mapping domain model to database. Can you write down some hints what should I explore?
One thing to consider is that L2S "does it for you" by creating the objects in an extremely large DBML file. You can work with your objects by creating partial classes, but if you decide to try to make any changes to the dbml files you are screwed because L2S will either overwrite your changes when it regenerates itself or you will have to implement any changes manually going forward.
So you are kind of stuck because its a terrible idea to change the DBML, but because of that there are limits to what you can do in terms of naming properties of your objects. A classic example is in the case of using enums that get stored as ints in your database. Lets say you have UserType as a enum in your app, in your user table you would probably just store that as an int column named UserType. Thats great except when you create your DBML file you get UserType mapped as an int column... but if you really want the property UserType to return a UserType enum you are forced to either hack the DBML... or change your naming conventions in your database to match your ORM tool... neither of which are good options.
Whereas nHibernate is just an XML based mapping between YOUR objects and YOUR database which gives you significantly more flexibility in terms of how you want to set things up.
another thing to look at is the many-to-many relationships and the table-per-subclass/ table-per-class mappings that are referenced here:
http://nhibernate.info/doc/nh/en/index.html
I don't believe that L2S can handle table-per-subclass relationships.
Hope this helps,
-Max
Specifically you will probably want to look at the limitations that LINQ to SQL has mapping many to many relationships. This is a big difference between in the mapping between the two products.
This is not specific to any language, it´s just about best practices. I am using JPA/Hibernate (but it could be any other ORM solution) and I would like to know how do you guys deal with this situation:
Let´s suppose that you have a query returning something that is not represented by any of your domain classes.
Do you create a specific class to represent that specific query?
Do you return the query in some other kind of object (array, map...)
Some other solutions?
I would like to know about your experiences and best practices.
P.S.
Actually I am creating specific objetcs for specific queries.
We have a situation that sounds similar to yours.
We use separate objects for reporting data that spans several domain objects. Our convention is that these will be backed by a view in the database, so we have come to call them view objects. We generally use them for summarising complex data into a flat format.
I typically write a function that performs a query using SQL and then puts the results into either a list or dictionary (in Java, I'd use either an ArrayList or a HashMap).
If I found myself doing this a lot, I'd probably create a new file to hold all of these queries. Otherwise I'd just make them functions in whatever file they were needed/used.
Since we're talking Java specifically, I would certainly not create a new class in a separate file. However, for queries needed in only one class, you could create a private static inner class with only the function(s) needed to generate the query(s) needed by that class.
The idea of wrapping that up the functionality in some sort of manager is always nice. It allows for better testing, and management therefore of schema changes.
Also allows for easier reuse in the application. NEVER just put the sql in directly!!!. For Hibernate I have found HQL great for just this. In particular , if you can use Named queries. Also be careful of adding an filter values etc use "string append", use parameters (can we say SQL injection ?). Even if the SQL is dynamic in terms of the join or where criteria, have a function in some sort of manager is always best.
#DrPizza
I will be more specific. We have three tables in a database
USER
PROJECT
TASK
USER to TASK 1:n
PROJECT to TASK 1:n
I have a query that returns a list of all projects but showing also some grouped information (all tasks, open tasks, closed tasks). When returned, the query looks like this
PROJECTID: 1
NAME: New Web Site
ALLTASK: 10
OPENTASK: 7
CLOSEDTASK: 3
I don´t have any domain class that could represent this information and I don´t want to create specific methods in Project class (like getAllTasks, getOpenTasks) because each of these methods would trigger a new query.
So the question is:
I create a new class (somenthing like ProjectTasksQuery) just to hold that information?
I return information within array or map?
Something else?
You might feel better after reading about Data Transfer Objects. Some people plain don't like them, but if it feels like a good fit to you, it probably is.