Can anyone throw some light on tools that can be used with NHibernate and which perform the below mentioned tasks:
Generates the Mapping File
Generates the Entity Class
Generates the Configuration file
And also provide information whether these tools are open source or licensed.
Thanks
One tool I've used that did a decent job was CodeSmith. It looked at the existing database and created the entities, mappings and configuration file. However, this is only to be used as a starting point as there are many tweaks you'll likely want to do to make it more usable and better performing. Things such as when to lazy load vs. eager load, creating subclasses or components. This tool really just mimics the database structure in your entities which is not always the best way to represent in code.
This is a licensed solution but it includes a fully functional demo you can use to gen your files initially. After that, you'll most likely just enhance just as you would your database.
Another is MyGeneration. Same thing, it'll get you 75% of the way there in most cases.
Just be cautious as to which version of NHibernate these tools are producing. They may be using an older version which may have some obsolete code.
I really like Visual NHibernate (http://www.slyce.com/VisualNHibernate/).
Not free, but has a nice set of features, including the definition of templates for the entities, and generating both HBM.XML as well as Fluent NHibernate mappings.
A similar question with some answers you might find useful is already on SO.
NHibernate Generators
As mentioned in that question's answers, fluent NHibernate is a good option. It just went RTM. You can find more info at http://fluentnhibernate.org/
Check out LLBLGen Pro. It's got a competing ORM but can also act as a code generator for nhibernate. Very good for DB first work.
Related
I recently posted a question regarding NHibernate. This lead me to check Codesmith's framework PLINQO for NHibernate.
At the same time, i was reading a tutorial on nhibernate at their official site (as i was looking at the generated project by PLINQO).
I am not an expert on NHibernate but what i am looking at right now (PLINQO Generated NHibernate project) looks to me very sloppy, pretty much a recipe for disaster. It creates a set of "Entities" that i am guessing is the business object? A big mess to my eyes.
Does anyone has experience with Codesmith's NHibernate?
Can anyone point me to a mc daddy of NHibernate. I have found so many variants so far that i am already overwhelmed with all this.
Thanks you.
I work for CodeSmith Tools. How do you feel the generated project looks sloppy? How would you improve it? We try to separate out the entities (POCOs) / hbm's for consistency and easy of use (as Randy detailed above). The Entities are generated directly from what is defined in the hbm file, which can be customized without losing your changes.
The generated project follows the architecture of Linq-to-SQL and Entity Framework. We feel this allows developers on the Microsoft Stack to switch between backends quickly (NHibernate to EF or EF to NHibernatE) while minimizing the amount of code changes.
The generated datacontext manages the NHibernate sessions for you while giving you access to query extensions, caching and much more. Also, you don't lose any core NHibernate features as we just extend the core libraries. All of the core features are available on the DataContext under an advanced property.
P.S., The best place to post questions and get a timely response is via our forums.
Do mapping attributes offer the same versatility as nhib hbm's do? Can you use them together with FNH to handle things FNH doesn't yet do as well as hbm's can?
Cheers,
Berryl
By mapping attributes, I don't mean hbm files; there are apparently attributes that come with NHib (or maybe NHib contrib these days) that you use to decorate your class & class properties. I'm guessing these pre-date FNH, but not sure.
I personally prefer to create the hbm.xml files myself. I've used Fluent, but I just like managing the nitty gritty myself for things like this. However I've not run into any mappings that I haven't been able to get working with Fluent though...
It is my understanding that Fluent nHibernate actually creates an hbm.xml file in the background based on your settings that is in turn used by nHibernate... so being that Fluent is itself creating the mappings, I would argue that just creating the hbm.xml manually would technically give you more flexibility and access to the nuance of the mapping file...
I think that there is a similar learning curve for both, so if you are going to bother learning Fluent that itself creates hbm.xml files, why not just learn how to create the damn hbm.xml files yourself in the first place and skip the middle man!
Unless you are doing MANY MANY projects in rapid succession, the act of actually mapping your database is only a fragment of the actual work you are doing on a particular project.
Max Schilling
The NHibernate attributes do pre-date FNH. Apart from a relatively small group of die-hard holdouts, I don't really know anyone that uses them. They're supported, but not exactly friendly. If you like attributes, the Castle ActiveRecord attributes are a much better implementation than the NHibernate core ones.
Fluent NHibernate can work with everything else. All it does is inject mappings into the NHibernate Configuration instance, so you can put whatever else in there you like. ActiveRecord is a bit more of a wide-reaching solution, so that may be an exception to this rule, it's been a while since I've used it.
I've never run into a situation that couldn't be handled by Fluent NHibernate, but maybe you're using an obscure attribute. Anything in particular you need to know is available?
We are using them in my business and I kinda like them.
I think it is really neat writing the mapping directly in the class definition (I know - to each one his own).
I agree with most the comments here, Hibernate gives you the freedom of choice on how to implement the maps for the objects.
I prefer not to use attributes on my classes for NHibernate, as now my classes now have another dependancy which they should not know of.
What happens if you want to change your datasouce to a OODB or just a file. The classes will have redundant mapping code(the attributes). in this case it could be said, its cleaner to store the mapping in the data/infrastructure layer with the repository implementation (assumed useage of the repository pattern)
I also agree, each to they own :)
I'm trying to understand where NHibernate 3 stands in relation to Hibernate 3 with respect to attributes vs annotation. I've been on several Java projects where we used Hibernate 3 annotations for mapping. It is quite elegant as
the entitites are clearly documented where the code lives
easier to debug when stepping through the debugger...
you don't have to go open a separate file out of context
less artifacts to manage
compile time checking
intellisense = fewer typos
no need to install/learn a separate 3rd party component (e.g. FNH)
the Hibernate team invested in making annotations easy to use and integral
Not sure I buy the "what if you have to change datasources" or the "separation of concerns" arguments. In practice, those arguments are looking at the "20%" (or less) that either won't occur, or have marginal impact if they do - the benefits are far greater IMHO.
With that said, what is not clear to me is whether the NHibernate team has invested enough in making the attributes robust enough to warrant use, or would I be better off moving to EF4.x to get the same benefits... those are the answers I was hoping for from this post.
While this is a subjective question, as a new NHibernate user, I'm curious as to why one would choose Fluent vs traditional XML mapping.
From my standpoint, when I first worked with NHibernate, I used the Fluent interface, but ran into some roadblocks and had a hard time finding adequate documentation for the Fluent interface for anything beyond a 'toy app', so I learned to handle these via XML.
Over time, I realized I did most of my work on the XML side, and realized it was not as horrific as I thought it would be. So for me personally, it was a case of poor documentation and not seeing a significant savings in coding time.
That being said, there may be some huge advantage/disadvantage that I'm missing, and I'd really like to hear some opinions from folks who have more experience in working with these tools.
Compile-time safety and refactoring (renaming classes, properties) are one of the benefits you get from fluent mappings. Using one language (C# or VB.NET) to write mappings, program code and data access is another benefit.
Compile-time name- and type-safety
IntelliSense to show you which fluent methods are available at any point
Customizable defaults
Automapper
For me, the big feature in Fluent is the Automapper.
I can define my domain model using POCO classes, (mostly) without worrying about the nasty details of how they will be mapped to tables in a relational database.
As a long time OO developer, and occasional DB developer, I'm much more comfortable designing in an OO fashion. I also believe that this allows me to work at a higher, more powerful level of abstraction.
Automapping also makes ongoing changes to the domain model much less daunting.
Your customers have just told you at the last minute they want to add four new columns to the database?
No problem - add four new properties to the associated POCO (4 lines of code), and remap.
Takes a lot of the pain out of the constantly changing requirements that are a fact of life on many projects.
I'll add a reason that is very important for making custom functionality based on a common code base:
With fluent you can override mappings to add a new field. Changes to the existing (superclass) mappings are automatically incorporated into the customization/branch. I was forced to use Fluent to avoid maintaining a seperate .hbm/xml file for each customer. Glad I did :)
Like a lot of open source software, this library was available to the public before a lot of the features were production ready. Depending on what version of FluentNhib you were working with, some features may not have been implemented at all. For example, when I first started working with it, composite keys had not been implemented yet and I found stumbling block after stumbling block.
But the product has evolved into quite a great tool. It's pretty feature complete compared to xml and provides all the benefits others have outlined already.
I need to collect some information about existing ORM solutions.
Please feel free to write about any programming language.
Can you tell about the best ORM framework you ever use and why is it better then others?
I used NHibernate and Entity Framework.
Current stable version of entity framework is very immature. It is too difficult, or impossible to perform common tasks. Testing your code is also difficult since you cannot really separate your entities from your data access classes. But it perfectly integrates with visual studio ide. Setting up is easy and updating all the models from database takes just a few seconds. Upcoming version of EF (4.0) will solve some of this problems.
NHibernate is quite powerful. It supports plain old clr objects, so you can work with simple entities. Configurations provide great control in great detail. Framework capabilities are satisfying and it has a large and active community and good documentation. Setting up and updating entities is a little difficult since you must use generators that looks up your database and generates entities and xml files. It may be tricky to find a generator or a template that exactly fits your needs. But once you set all things up, you will love it.
I found LINQ to SQL to be a pretty straight forward solution. The first time I used it, I'd say I had a basic ORM working within a few hours, and was creating LINQ queries with it.
Microsoft has an additional ORM (Entity Framework), which I've heard is more complex but may be useful for highly complex distributed applications with multiple data sources etc.
Overall I found LINQ to be an easy and fast to use ORM.
I have been looking at Telerik Open Access for last few months, in genernal this ORM has been a pain to work with, it was advertised as having extensive linq support but in reality many of the linq features you would normally expect dont work server side and are performed on the client. I also had problems using multiple conditions in a where clause, see my last question. Here are a few things that i found
No support for views
Unable to map more than one entity to the same table
Inheritance and Interface support requires you to make changes to you database schema
No visual designer like LINQ to SQL and Entity Framework
If you want to perform an insert any related entities must be fetched first
Rohan
LINQ2SQL was nice, EF makes sense, but is very complex and SQL Server oriented. NHibernate is special and Telerik OpenAccess (fully .NET / Visual Studio) got a broad set of functionality and professional support.
Since I know the product I can comment on Rohan's concerns:
Existing Views can be used and full Views support is coming up
Mapping more than one entity to the same table "works" for class hierarchies, limitation with reverse mapping exists
Inheritance and Interfacer support "do not require" changes to the the database schema, again limitation with reverse mapping exists though
Visual Designer will come, Forward and Reverse Mapping Wizards allow you already to do anything in an easy way
There is a workaround for the insert issue mentioned and it will be fixed generally
Check out the Telerik site to find happy customers and feel free to use the telerik forums and support resources for any question.
-Peter
Im new to OpenAccess ORM and we are using two products. Reporting and OpenAccess.
I think there are some features that people missed.
OpenAccess uses graphical designers while nHibernate still uses handwritten xml files
OpenAccess is not limited to SQl Server as EF4 and similiar frameworks
using it is easier and the forums are pretty helpful.
With ORM there are multiple possibilities, all depends what you want.
As a real ORM mapper I strongly recomment NHibernate and Fluent NH mappings. You need a lot of research to put together a nice architecture, but then nothing stands in your way. With minimal compromises you get real flexibility.
EF6x (core is not prod.-ready IMHO) is called an ORM, but what it generates is more closer to a DAL. There are some thing's you can't do effectively with EF6. Still, this is my favorite tool for a read-model, while I do combine it with NHibernate (where NH I use for a DDD/write model).
Now to performance - its always pro and cons. If you deep deeper into ORM architecture (see my article: avoid ORM bad habits) then you will find intuitively the ways to make it faster. Here's my another article on how to make EF6x 5x faster (at least for read situations): EF6.x 5x faster
I just want to do a quick poll to see if Fluent Nhibernate is well received or if it is having lot of issues. I like Nhibernate but I definitely see the problem with xml to do mapping.
So, I am looking forward to community members for some insight and help me pick one over the other.
I am not considering either linq2sql or entity framework at this time.
I like Fluent NHibernate and I think it's mature enough if you are going to start a new project. Using it on a new project should allow the Fluent NHibernate project to continue to mature as yours progresses. There is a possibility for breaking changes (as happened recently with the convention mappings) but you should be able to deal with those. I've had a few issues with the mappings but the project is pretty responsive to bug reports and has mostly worked as expected.
The mapping options are:
Xml mappings - Standard of NHibernate. The maintenance headaches are well known but the advantage is that you have access to all of the configuration options provided by NHibernate. There are a few less-used configuration options are still being added to Fluent (at least last time I paid attention). So, if you are anticipating some crazy mappings, you may want to consider this option.
Standard Mapping - Provided by Fluent. You can create the mappings through code and is much better for refactoring and authoring. Not much to say about it, in my experience, other then that it works well and is a big improvement on the xml option.
Auto Mapping - Provided by Fluent. Allows you to map object properties by convention and it attempts to create the mappings automatically. It's a good idea but I think it still has some maturing to do. I'm currently using this mapping method and it works fine but I have ended up writing a large number of conventions and specifying the object relationships that it doesn't feel like it's saved much effort from the standard mappings.
Fluent NHibernate also provides nice test helpers for testing your mappings and some configuration APIs that can make it easier to configure NHibernate. Overall, it's a good project and it provides some nice additional functionality to NHibernate.
edit:
One additional thing to note: If you start off with Fluent NHibernate and decide it isn't going to work for your scenario, you can easily migrate back to the xml mappings. Fluent NHibernate allows you to export the mappings it creates and you can use those exports to not lose whatever mapping work you've already done.
One of the best advantages of using Fluent Nhibernate over vanilla NH is nice integration testing with PersistenceSpecification<T>:
[Test]
public void TestProductSave()
{
new PersistenceSpecification<Product>()
.CheckProperty(x => x.ProductName, "Wax")
.CheckProperty(x => x.Price, 20)
.VerifyTheMappings();
}
I've been using fluent on a new project of mine. The only minor bump I've hit so far is that it doesn't play so well with Castle Windsor out of the box, but it was quite easy to extend Windsor to do the job. Other than that I've been loving it. It's much more concise than the XML mappings.
The nice thing about fluent is that it isn't an all or nothing investment. You can write most of your mappings in fluent and if you find any issues you can map those classes in the standard XML mapping until the fluent issues are resolved.
Like any good answer, it depends.
I didn't get as much mileage out of the automapping features as I would have wanted to. I often have to work with preexisting databases.
I already had several projects using NHibernate under my belt, so using the hbm mapping wasn't difficult. After I figured out how to include in the hbm schema, it was much easier.
The one real advantage I gained from having fluent-nhibernate is being able to refactor my domain classes and have my mappings automatically change. I didn't really notice that much of a speed increase in writing the mappings.
Like anything, YMMV.
I am using FNH for a new project. What I like the best is the ability to generate and build the database directly from the entity classes.
I have had to write a few conventions for the properties but I'd rather that then maintain more than one list for each class.