I have class called 'Tool'. Tool has properties like: Name, Description and some specific others. Tool is special because Name and others are read only but description can be modified by users.
Count of tools is constant and known at development time. It is not Value Object because I need to query them and show to users where they can update Description. So, it's kind of Entity but users can not create new Tools.
I'm looking for possibility to take Tool like this:
Tool.SomeGreatTool
where SomeGreatTool is Tool with name "Some great tool" and description should be the same like this specified by user.
Jimmy Bogard has solution almost perfect but NHibernate know anything about SomeGreatTool and Description will be null.
How to modify Jimmy's solution or how to do it different way? How to instantiate SomeGreatTool from database?
We still treat these kinds of semi-constant data as a sort of well-known entities. We create value objects/enumeration classes for the tool types, but separate tool types from tools. You still need to go to the persistent store to do something like ToolRepository.Find(ToolType.Screwdriver). Even though there will be only one tool per tool type, you'd still separate these two concepts.
Related
I need a word that covers both schema and data.
I'm designing some classes that are part of a system that needs to store and process data that will only be defined at run time. I have some classes that contain a definition objects, and a storage objects.
This is going into a refactor of a core section a code base that has been going strong for 15 years, lots of people will need to use and understand the source code, so i'd like to do what i can to make it easy to understand. A group of us a have haggled and sweated over the design, but no-one has come up with a name for the classes:
I feel:
[Unknown Word]
|
|______schema
|______data
is what we are looking for
but
data
|
|______schema
|______storage
is the best so far.
How about model?
You have some data which is persisted to the store according to a given schema (possibly required by the store itself). You create, remove, update or delete data through some operations, which present the results in a format useful for manipulation: this format can be the same one defined by the storing schema or an abstraction or anyway a manipulation of it.
I would go with model.
I would say:
application
system
solution
etc.
or if it has a specific target, can use that, e.g.
customers
products
scheduling
etc..
It seems like every time a new project gets started, a bunch of customer-related code gets copied and pasted. First name, last name, gender, email, etc.
Is there a current standard for customer contact / id data? It seems to me that it would be MUCH easier to have a defined standard for working with this information rather than getting stuck on whether or not to use "first_name" or "firstName" when creating this structure.
What I'm looking for is a universal format for a customer object.
Anyone seen anything like this?
In java every variable name and also member variable names should be set in lower camel case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelCase
Here are the naming conventions from oracle:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/codeconventions-135099.html#367
This is some kind of "standard" for such things.
A bit old, but have you looked at the Party Model as a standard way of dealing with things like customers?
Take a look at the data model diagrams from the Apache Open for Business Project - you'll find plenty of useful information on how to construct the customer object by looking at how they deal with the Party object first:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Data+Model+Diagrams
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.
Example case:
We're building a renting service, using SQL Server. Information about items that can be rented is stored in a table. Each item has a state that can be either "Available", "Rented" or "Broken". The different states reside in a lookup table.
ItemState table:
id name
1 'Available'
2 'Rented'
3 'Broken'
Adding to this we have a business rule which states that whenever an item is returned, it's state is changed from "Rented" to "Available".
This could be done with a an update statement like "update Items set state=1 where id=#itemid". In application code we might have an enum that maps to the ItemState id:s. However, these contain hard coded values that could lead to maintenance issues later on. Say if a developer were to change the set of states but forgot to fix the related business logic layer...
What good methods or alternate designs are there for dealing with this type of design issues?
Links to related articles are also appreciated in addition to direct answers.
In my experience this is a case where you actually have to hardcode, preferably by using an Enum which integer values match the id's of your lookup tables. I can't see nothing wrong with saying that "1" is always "Available" and so forth.
Most systems that I've seen hard code the lookup table values and live with it. That's because, in practice, code tables rarely change as much as you think they might. And if they ever do change, you generally need to re-compile any programs that rely on that DDL anyway.
That said, if you want to make the code maintainable (a laudable goal), the best approach would be to externalize the values into a properties file. Then you can edit this file later without having to re-code your entire app.
The limiting factor here is that your app depends for its own internal state on the value you get from the lookup table, so that implies a certain amount of coupling.
For lookups where the app doesn't rely on that code, (for instance, if your code table stores a list of two-letter state codes for use in an address drop-down), then you can lazily load the codes into an object and access them only when needed. But that won't work for what you're doing.
When you have your lookup tables as well as enums defined in the code, then you always have an issue with keeping them in sync. There is not much that can be done here. Both live effectively in two different worlds and are generally unaware of each other.
You may wish to reject using lookup tables and only let your business logic operate these values. In that case you miss the options of relying on referential integrity to back you ap on the data integrity.
The other option is to build up your application in that way that you never need these values in your code. That means moving part of your business logic to the database layer, meaning, putting them in stored procedures and triggers. This will also have the benefit of being agnostic to the client. Anyone can invoke SPs and get assured the data will be kept in the consistence state, consistent with your business logic rules as well.
You'll need to have some predefined value that never changes, be it an integer, a string or something else.
In your case, the numerical value of the state is the state's surrogate PRIMARY KEY which should never change in a well-designed database.
If you're concerned about the consistency, use a CHAR code: A, R or B.
However, you should stick to it as well as to a numerical code so that A always means Available etc.
You database structure should be documented as well as the code is.
The answer depends entirely on the language you're using: solutions for this are not the same in Java, PHP, Smalltalk or even Assembler...
But let me tell you something: while it's true hard coded values are not a great thing, there are times in which you do need them. And this one is pretty much one of them: you need to declare in your code your current knowledge of the business logic, which includes these hard coded states.
So, in this particular case, I would hard code those values.
Don't overdesign it. Before trying to come up with a solution to this problem, you need to figure out if it's even a problem. Can you think of any legit hypothetical scenario where you would change the values in the itemState table? Not just "What if someone changes this table?" but "Someone wants to change this table in X way for Y reason, what effect would that have?". You need to stay realistic.
New state? you add a row, but it doesn't affect the existing ones.
Removing a state? You have to remove the references to it in code anyway.
Changing the id of a state? There is no legit reason to do that.
Changing the name of a state? There is no legit reason to do that.
So there really should be no reason to worry about this. But if you must have this cleanly maintainable in the case of irrational people who randomly decide to change Available to 2 because it just fits their Feng Shui better, make sure all tables are generated via a script which reads these values from a configuration file, and then make sure all code reads constants from that same configuration file. Then you have one definition location and any time you want to change the value you modify that configuration file instead of the DB/code.
I think this is a common problem and a valid concern, that's why I googled and found this article in the first place.
What about creating a public static class to hold all the lookup values, but instead of hard-coding, we initialize these values when the application is loaded and use names to refer them?
In my application, we tried this, it worked. Also you can do some checking, e.g. the number of different possible values of a lookup in code should be the same as in db, if it's not, log/email/etc. But I don't want to manually code this for the status of 40+ biz entities.
Moreover, this can be part of the bigger problem of OR mapping. We're exposed with too much details of the persistence layer, and thus we have to take care of it. With technologies like Entity Framework, we don't need to worry about the "sync" part because it's automated, am I right?
Thanks!
I've used a similar method to what you're describing - a table in the database with values and descriptions (useful for reporting, etc.) and an enum in code. I've handled the synchronization with a comment in code saying something like "these values are taken from table X in database ABC" so that the programmer knows the database needs to be updated. To prevent changes from the database side without the corresponding changes in code I set permissions on the table so that only certain people (who hopefully remember they need to change the code as well) have access.
The values have to be hard-coded, which effectively means that they can't be changed in the database, which means that storing them in the database is redundant.
Therefore, hard-code them and don't have a lookup table in the database. Instead store the items state directly in the items table.
You can structure your database so that your application doesn't actually have to care about the codes themselves, but rather the business rules behind them.
I have done both of the following:
Do one or more of your codes have a certain characteristic, such as IsAvailable, that the application cares about? If so, add it as a flag column to the code table, where those that match are set to true (or your DB's equivalent), and those that don't are set to false.
Do you need to use a specific, single code under a certain condition? You can create a singleton table, named something like EnvironmentSettings, with a column such as ItemStateIdOnReturn that's a foreign key to the ItemState table.
If I wanted to avoid declaring an enum in the application, I would use #2 to address the example in the question.
Whether you take this approach depends on your application's priorities. This type of structure comes at the cost of additional development and lookup overhead. Plus, if every individual code comes with its own business rules, then it's not practical to create one new column per required code.
But, it may be worthwhile if you don't want to worry about synchronizing your application with the contents of a code table.
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.