I think its quite usual task, but still solutions I saw look not so nice.
For example in Qt used approach based on MVC pattern -- you must assign all connections manually.
Or I remember one PHP engine where pages were creating from DB schema.
Which are other approaches? Which one you are prefer? What are the best practices?
Usually, there is not a one to one mapping from the database to the GUIThere are many subtle combinations that change between how you store the data and how that stored data is visualized and edited by the user.
however, you can automate a datamodel layer in your code with tools like Hibernate. You will still need to use the model as required to present your user interface.
Related
I have an existing database with 10 or so tables and thousands of rows. I’m tiring of SQL and would like to add an ORM — probably either Objection or Sequelize.
Is there a good way to implement either ORM on an existing database?
It's not particularly difficult to connect Sequelize to an existing database. You just need to configure the connection and set up models.
If your previously-created tables include some attributes that don't match up to Sequelize's approach out of the box, you may need to write some extra code in your models. Again, this is fairly painless. See Working With Legacy Tables for additional information.
I have legacy code that has DB connected.I'm trying to add new features for this app with Symfony2. I used Theodo Evolution Bundle to access the legacy session.
First thing that I want to do now, is to build an API that will use data from existing database. This database has tables that are not converted to entities. My question is which is best approach in this case. To use native queries from existing tables in database to build API or to convert tables into entities I used documentation for this part but I'm not sure will import all relations and everything) and then to build API. Can you please suggest me which is best approach in this case. Thank you.
The best approach in my opinion is to work with doctrine entities within the framework and to avoid direct SQL if possible. That is the basic philosophy behind frameworks such as Symfony: the database layer should be abstracted.
The entity-database mapping might be quite more of a hassle at first, because you can't rely on automatic tools to set it up, but once it's done it will be much easier to work out the rest of the application.
I have a medium-sized app written in Ruby, which makes pretty heavy use of a RDBMS. As our code grows, I found the ugly SQL statements are spreading to all modules and methods in my app and embedded in many application logic. I am not sure if this is bad, however, my gut tells me this is quite ugly...
So generally in any languages, how do you manage your SQL statements? Or do you think it is harmful for maintainibility to let many SQL statements embedded in the application logic? Why or why not?
Thanks.
SQL is a language for accessing databases. Often, it gets confused as being the API into the data store for a larger application. In fact, you should design a real API between the data store and the app.
The means several things.
For accessing data stored in tables, you want to go through views in the database, rather than directly access the tables.
For data modification steps, you want to wrap insert/update/delete in stored procedures. This has secondary benefits, where you can handle constraints and triggers in the stored procedure and better log what is happening.
For security, you want to include database security as part of your security architecture. Giving all users full access may not be the best approach.
Unfortunately, it is easy to write a simple app that uses a database directly, whether in java or ruby or VBA or whatever. This grows into a bigger app, and then the maintenance problems arise.
I would suggest an incremental approach to fixing this. Go through the code and create views where you have nasty select statements. You'll probably find you need many fewer views than selects (the views can be re-used -- a good thing).
Find places where code is being modified, and change these to stored procedures. I always return status from the stored procedure for error checking and put log information into a table called someting like splog or _spcalls.
If you want to limit permissions for different users of your app, then you might be interested in this.
Leaving the raw SQL statements in the code is a problem. Just wait until you want to rename a column and you have to find all the places where this breaks the code.
Yes, this is not optimal - maintenance becomes a nightmare; it's hard to forecast and determine which code must change when underlying DB changes occur. This is why it is good practice to create a data access layer (DAL) to encapsulate CRUD operations from the application logic. There is often an business logic layer (BLL) between the application logic and DAL to enforce business rules/logic.
Google "data access layer" "business logic layer" and even "n-tier architecture" to learn more.
If you are concerned about the SQL statements littered around your application logic, maybe consider implementing them as Stored Procedures?
That way you will only be including the procedure name and any parameters that need to be passed to it in your code.
It has other benefits too, a common one being easier to re-use in multiple files.
There is much debate about speed and security of Stored Procedure and you will never get a definitive answer about that so I won't even open that can of worms.
Here is how you do this with Java: Create a class that encapsulates all access to the database. Add a method to the class for each query you need to run.
The answer for ruby will be similar to this.
It depends on the architecture of your application but a simple solution is to keep each sql in a file, qry.sql. For each Ruby module (or whatever is used in Ruby to aggregate related code) you can keep a folder SQL with these files. So, the collection of SQL folder/files form the data access layer of your application. The Ruby code provides the business layer. If your data model changes (field names, etc), you can do greps to identify the sql files that need changes. Anyway, definitely separate SQL from your logic code.
I am designing an ASP.NET MVC 2 application. Currently I am leveraging Entity Framework 4 with switchable SQLServer and MySQL datastores.
A requirement recently surfaced for the application to allow user-defined models/entities to be manipulated. Now I'm unsure if a SQL/relational database is appropriate at all; instead of adding/removing 'Employee' objects, for example, the user should be able to define an 'Employee' and what properties it has - effectively adding/removing tables and columns on the fly, at runtime.
Is SQL unsuitable for this? Are there options which allow me to stay within a relational database structure and still satisfy this requirement? Within the Entity Framework, can I regenerate .edmx files 'on the fly' or are there alternatives which achieve similar goals?
I've looked briefly at other options like 'document-based' dbs and 'schema-free/no-sql' dbs, such as MongoDb. I've also looked at some serialization formats such as Google's Protocol Buffers, JSON, and XML. From your experience, are any of these particularly suitable for this purpose? Serialization performance is not a big concern.
The application is in its infancy and I have no time constraints. Essentially I am free to rewrite it as I please, so if scrapping and starting over is a better alternative, I am very open to this. What are your suggestions? Thanks in advance!
Before looking at options I'd suggest (if you have not already done it :-) that you need to get a clear definition of exactly what users will be able to define. Once you have that you can then deduce an idea of the level of flexibility needed and therefore the type of data store needed to do the job.
One other word of advice would be that if they clients demand to be able to create anything any way they want - walk away. I've dealt with clients and users at all levels and one thing that is guaranteed is is that users have no interest if the effective and efficient design of data and therefore will always reduce the data to a pile of poo through shear neglect.
You need to set some boundaries so that the data store behind the system maintains some integrity.
At my work everyone has sql snippets that they use to answer questions. Some are specific to a customer, while some are generic for a given database. I want to consolidate those queries into a library/repository that can be accessed by anyone on the team. The requirements would be:
Accessible
Searchable
Tagable (multiple tags allowed per sql)
Exportable (create a document containing all queries with certain tags)
I'm interested in what has been found to work in other team environments.
You could use a wiki.
You could get started with something as simple as Tiddly wiki.
A wiki is a great approach.
For database specific or project specific snippets it's also very useful to have links to where a similar construct occurs in the code. We use trac's wiki which gives nice integration with out SVN for this.
Rather than pasting SQL snippets, I would consider graduating to an ORM (Object-Relational Mapper) or some other library to make representing and manipulating the data easier. It provides a layer of encapsulation to guard against schema changes and a layer of abstraction so you can think of the data in terms of business logic (ie. a user) rather than a collection of tables (ie. a user table, a password table, an access table...).
In Perl this would be something like DBIx::Class.
Another approach you may want to look at is creating views in your database. 'select * from some_view' can hide quite a bit of SQL. You'll still want to use a wiki to document them, but if its a view you don't have to worry about people keeping outdated copies.