Best practices for querying with NHibernate - nhibernate

I've come back to using NHibernate after using other technologies (CSLA and Subsonic) for a couple of years, and I'm finding the querying a bit frustrating, especially when compared to Subsonic. I was wondering what other approaches people are using?
The Hibernate Query Language doesn't feel right to me, seems too much like writing SQL, which to my mind is one of the reason to use an ORM tools so I don't have to, furthermore it's all in XML, which means it's poor for refactoring, and errors will only be discovered at runtime?
Criteria Queries, don't seem fluid enough.
I've read that Ayende's NHibernate Query Generator, is a useful tool, is this what people are using? What else is out there?
EDIT: Worth a read
http://www.ayende.com/Blog/archive/2007/03/17/Implementing-Linq-for-NHibernate-A-How-To-Guide--Part.aspx

The thing with LINQ for NHibernate is still in beta; I'm looking forward to NHibernate 2.1, where they say it will finally make the cut.
I made a presentation on LINQ for NHibernate around a month ago, you might find it useful. I blogged about it here, including slides and code:
LINQ for NHibernate: O/R Mapping in Visual Studio 2008 Slides and Code

To rid yourself of the XML, try Fluent NHibernate
Linq2NH isn't fully baked yet. The core team is working on a different implementation than the one in NH Contrib. It works fine for simple queries though. Use sparingly if at all for best results.
As for how to query (hql vs. Criteria vs. Linq2NH), expose intention-revealing methods (GetProductsForOrder(Order order), GetCustomersThatPurchasedProduct(Product product), etc) on your repository interface and implement them in the best way. Simple queries may be easier with hql, while using the specification pattern you may find the Criteria API to be a better fit. That stuff just stays encapsulated in your repository, and if your tests pass it doesn't much matter how you implement.
I've found that the Criteria API is cumbersome and limiting but flexible. HQL is more my style (and it's better than SQL - it's object based, not schema based) and seems to work better for me for simple GetX methods..

I use Linq for NHibernate by default. When I hit bugs or limitations, I switch to HQL.
It's a clean approach if you keep all your queries together in a data access class, such as a Repository.
public class CustomerRepostitory()
{
//LINQ for NHibernate
public Customer[] FindCustomerByEmail(string email)
{
return (from c in _session.Linq<Customer>() where c.Email == email).FirstOrDefault();
}
//HQL
public Customer[] FindBestBuyers()
{
var q = _session.CreateQuery("...insert complex HQL here...");
return q.List<Customer>();
}
}
You asked about refactoring. LINQ is obviously taken care of by the IDE, so for any remaining HQL, it's fairly easy to scan these repository classes and change HQL by hand.
Putting HQL in XML files is a good practice, maybe see if the ReSharper NHIbernate plugin can handle the query refactoring by now?
A big improvement when writing or refactoring queries (HQL or LINQ) is to put finder methods under unit test. This way you can quickly tweak the HQL/LINQ until you get a green bar. The compile/test/feedback loop is very fast, especially if you use an in-memory database for testing.
Also, if you forget to edit the HQL after refactoring, the unit tests should let you know about your broken HQL very quickly.

An alternative to LINQ-to-NHibernate and Ayende's NHQG is to generate NHibernate Expressions/Restrictions from C#3 Expressions. This way you get a more strongly-typed Criteria API.
See:
http://bugsquash.blogspot.com/2008/03/strongly-typed-nhibernate-criteria-with.html
http://www.kowitz.net/archive/2008/08/17/what-would-nhibernate-icriteria-look-like-in-.net-3.5.aspx
http://nhibernate.info/blog/2009/01/07/typesafe-icriteria-using-lambda-expressions.html

scrap nHibernate and go back to Subsonic if you can. In my opinion, Subsonic is a far more fluent and testable ORM/DAL. I absolutely hate HQL what's the point of a weakly typed query in an ORM? And why would I use Linq/nH/SQL when I can just use Linq to SQL and cut out a layer?
nHibernate was a good ORM when Subsonic wasn't around, but now, it's just plain awful to work with in comparison. It easily takes me 2 times longer to do stuff with nHibernate vs Subsonic. Testing is a pain since nHibernate is runtime, so now I need to employ a few QA engineers to "click" around the site instead of getting a compile time error.

Related

Putting forward a solution to replace Typed datasets

A project I am currently employed with will have some time soon to improve and specialise a product that is currently in use.
We may have about 4 man weeks spare in which we could replace the typed datasets that are in use.
The project is currently written in Vb.Net and we will definitely not have time to replace this code with C#.Net, although we would like to.
My question is what would you suggest as a replacement for the typed datasets.
I have currently suggested nHibernate as I have worked with Hibernate before and loved it.
Linq to SQL has been discounted.
So if you can suggest something else/better or highlight what advantages or disadvantages with regards to our current time constraints please do!
Considering your time constraints Linq to SQL (despite being deprecated) would have been ideal. While NH or EF4 are more complete and flexible ORM solutions they do require more consideration of mappings than does a simple drag and drop from the Server Explorer connection mapping onto LINQ to SQL designer and simple instantiation of a DataContext object.
If you don't have the time to get everyone up to speed on an ORM with a future why eliminate the typed datasets at all?
Performance wise they are probably close to identical to what you would be able to get out of an ORM. The benefit of replacement would be maintainability and developer pleasure, both of which would be <warning:shameless plug for personal preference> accompanied by a C# rewrite at the same time...
I think NHibernate is a good choice to replace typed datasets, I just successfully did that on a project I was on recently. I wouldn't do a "big bang" approach though. I would write new features using NHibernate and maintain old features using typed datasets. Once the new features are working well with NHibernate and you have the appropriate usage patterns in place, I would carefully transition the typed dataset and sproc code to use NHibernate instead. The speed at which you do the replacement doesn't really matter, just move at a comfortable pace.
Big bang is always a highly risky approach and incremental progress is easier for everyone to swallow.
I honestly don't see a compelling reason to switch a project in production from VB.NET to C#, there are so few meaningful differences and it helps to have VB.NET (in addition to C#) experience on your resume.
I would not encourage use of LinqToSql nor would I encourage use of Entity Framework 3.5. EF 4 may be a reasonable option using the same incremental approach.

Help me choose between linq to sql and nhibernate based on the following

Struggling between choosing linq2sql and nhibernate.
Let me give you some insight in the application in point form:
this is a asp.net mvc application
it will have lots of tables, maybe 50-60 (sql server 2008)
i would want all the basic crud logic done for me (which I think nhiberate + repository pattern can give me)
i don't have too complicated mappings, my tables will look something like:
User(userID, username)
UserProfile(userID, ...)
Content(contentID, title, body, date)
Content_User(contentID, userID)
So in general, I will have a PK table, then lots of other tables that reference that PK (i.e. FK tables).
I will also have lots of mapping tables, that will contain PK, FK pairs.
Entity wise, I want User.cs, UserProfile.cs and then a way to load each object.
I am not looking for a User class that has a UserProfile property, and a Content Collection property (there will be maybe 10-20 tables that will related to the user, I just like to keep things linear if that makes sense).
The one thing that makes me learn towards nhibernate is: cross db potential, and the repository pattern that will give me basic db operations accross all my main tables almost instantly!
Since you seem to have a quite straight forward mapping from class to table in mind Linq to SQL should do the trick, without any difficulties. That would let you get started very quickly, without the initial work of mapping the domain manually to the database.
An alternative could be using NHibernate + Fluent NHibernate and its AutoMapping feature, but keep in mind that the Fluent NHibernate AutoMapping is still quite young.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you want your entities to look like, but with Linq to SQL you will get a big generated mess, which you then could extend by using partial classes. NHibernate lets you design you classes however you want and doesn't generate anything for you out of the box. You could kind of use POCO classes with Linq to SQL but that would take away all the benefits of using Linq to SQL rather than NHibernate.
Concerning the repository pattern, and the use of a generic repository, that can be done quite nicely with Linq to SQL as well, and not only with NHibernate. In my opinion that is one of the nice things about Linq to SQL.
If you probably will need support for other databases than SQL Server, NHibernate is the only choice. However, if it probably won't be an issue I would recommend not using that as the primary factor when choosing. The other factors will probably influence your project more.
Conclusion:
All in all, I would recomment Linq to SQL, in this case, since it would let you get started quickly and is sufficient for your needs. The precondition for that is that you don't have a problem with the thought of having generated, messy code in your domain, and that you are quite sure there will not be any need to support other databases in the future. Otherwise I would recommend NHibernate, since it is truly an awesome ORM.
linq2sql really wants you to work with 1 table per class mapping. So if you have a UserMaster and a UserDetail table, you are looking at two objects when using default linq object generation. You can get around that by mapping linq entities to business entities (see Rob Conery's storefront screencasts), but then you are back to writing object mapping code or using something like Automapper.
If you want to be able to split your classes across multiple tables, then I'd say go with NHibernate. If not, then linq has a lower learning curve.
The only way I'd ever use nHibernate in through Castle Project's ActiveRecord library. Otherwise, nHibernate becomes its own little infrastructure project. Check out some questions in the nHibernate tag to see what I'm talking about.
The only thing I might change about AR is to return results of SELECT operations as List instead of T[]. Of course, with the source code in C# I can do that if I want.
With ActiveRecord, the mapping information is saved in attributes you decorate your classes with. It's genius and I am a huge proponent of the pattern and this particular library.

What is so great about ORM?

So I'm having a head against the wall moment and hoping somebody can come help either remove the wall or stop my head from moving!!
Over the last 3/4 weeks I've been investigating ORM's in readyness for a new project. The ORM must map to an existing, large and ageing SQL database.
So I tried Subsonic. I really liked v2 and v3 after modding to work nicely with VB and named schemas in SQL was running OK. However, its lack of flexibility of having separate entity properties names vs column names had me pulling my hair out (sorry Rob).
I tried Entity Framework but I found like others it lacking in certain areas.
So I bit the bullet and tried nHibernate but after a week or so getting it working how I liked (with help from Codesmith to generate classes/hbms for me) I'm frustrated with the time it takes to startup (build a config object), despite trying a number of tricks to reduce this time.
I'm essentially after building a DAL class that I can share between apps and websites. Am I barking up the wrong tree? For a legacy project with 100s of tables should I go back to ado.net and use DTOs? Aarrgh!
Sorry for the ranty style of question. I don't have much hair left and I'd like to keep what I have!!
Thanks in advance, Ed
PS. I should add that I know SQL very well and not scared of getting my hands dirty to write fast queries. If anything I don't need to be hid from SQL
ORM let's you:
To map table rows to objects, that are the the workable pieces of object oriented programming.
To automatically navigate through object relationships
To easily add, edit and remove table rows
To query the database in a more intuitive way as you don't have to think of joins (this one will depend on the ORM and the query method)
To transparently handle L1 and L2 cache.
All of the above would have to be handled by hand if you werent using ORM.
PS: I agree to Dmitry as to the startup time of NHibernate (see question comments). Besides, did you try Fluent NHibernate? Fluent NHibernate is impressively easy. I couldn't believe my eyes when I first mapped a database. It's even easier than proprietary ORMs like DevExpress XPO.
The biggest benefit of an ORM tool is that it will help you layer your application correctly. Most project nowadays use a Data Layer to connect to the database. You start from the ORM tool to produce classes that correspond to your database objects. Then you define an interface using these methods. All persistence code uses the methods of this interface. This way the business logic layer is only coupled to this higher-layer interface and needs to know nothing about the database. In fact there should be no dependency on ADO.NET or even NHibernate.
Another advantage of ORM tools is that you de-couple your application from the database server. You could change the db engine and still use the same code. Also there isn't only the complexity of the SQL that the ORM hides from you. It can also help you with transactions logic and connection pooling.
I'd say that for new projects an ORM tool is a necessity. For legacy projects it isn't so much beneficial, unless of course you have the time/money to start from scratch.
In my experience, most ORMs end up being way more complex than SQL. Which defeats the entire purpose of using them.
One solution I'm enthusiastic about is LINQ2SQL. It excels as a thin layer about stored procedures or views. It's really easy to use and doesn't try to hide SQL.
There are basically two questions here:
What's great about ORMs? There are similar questions on Stackoverflow. See:
What are the advantages of using an ORM?
Is everyone here jumping on the ORM band wagon?
How can I improve NHibernate startup time? See:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2007/10/26/Real-World-NHibernate-Reducing-startup-times-for-large-amount-of.aspx
http://nhforge.org/blogs/nhibernate/archive/2009/03/13/an-improvement-on-sessionfactory-initialization.aspx

NHibernate or FluentNHibernate or ActiveRecord?

I am in a stage of mapping my CSharp classes into database tables. I have decided to use NHibernate as my ORM tool after comparing with other tools. I have never done a real project with NHibernate before and now am considering alternatives for the mapping,
ActiveRecord: according to the project's web site, using ActiveRecord can boost productivity dramatically. However, I do not like the idea of adding attributes to my CSharp classes. After all, my class should NOT have any knowledge of database relationships. By using ActiveRecord will bind my nicely separated classes to ActiveRecord, and give me hard time if I ever want to switch underline DAO Layer implementation in the future.
FluentNHibernate: FluentNhibernate was my first attempt when starting mapping. But I also have a few issues with this approach. 1) I don't like my mapping strategies compiled as binary files. I would like to be able to change mapping by modifying xml files. 2) The maturity of FluentNHibernate. NHibernate has been around for a long time, and has LOTS of users, so I am quite comfortable with its maturity. On the contrast, FluentNhibernate is relatively young and not been tested by as many users. Even though I could dive into the source to fix whatever issue comes up, I am not comfortable with my skills to touch the low level implementation. 3) Availability of documentation for FluentNHibernate is much than that of NHibernate. I would like to have a place to go when I hit a hard wall.
NHibernate: Currently, I am using naked Nhibernate xml to do the mapping. To be honest, working with XML gives me massive headaches. Literally, I have to keep myself from the impulsion of just throwing away the .hbm.xml files and grab ActiveRecord or FluentNHibernate several times a day.
So, here is my dilemma: Should I go with my heart of "Just get this damn thing done!"; Or, should I follow the "Good practice guideline" to suffer the pain now and get relatively easy time later on?
Any comments?
Please note that any classes related to an ORM should not necessary be treated as "business object" classes or exposed to your UI. They should be considered part of your data layer. This pattern is not really unique to ActiveRecord. In general, you want your business layer to know as little as possible regarding the fact that there is an ORM beneath it, and you don't want your UI to know about your data layer. You also want to consider DTOs.
Fluent NHibernate solves the problem of having weakly typed XML which can be error prone to refactor.
While there can be downsides of adopting something like ActiveRecord, it seems like an appropriate solution in your case.
The best reason to use .hbm.xml files is if you are going to code generate them from your database (using something like CodeSmith). Hand coding the .hbm.xml files is rarely the best option.

When choosing an ORM, is LINQ to SQL or LINQ to Entities better than NHibernate?

I find I can do more with NHibernate, and even Castle than with the Linq to Entities, or linq to SQL.
Am I crazy?
No you're not crazy. nHibernate is a full OR Mapper, Linq to SQL and Linq to Entities don't implement everything you'd expect from an OR mapper and targeted at a slightly different group of developers.
But don't let that put you off linq though. Linq is still a pretty good idea.. Try Linq to nHibernate :-)
The big drawbacks to NHibernate, Castle, etc., is that they're not exactly light-weight (especially NHibernate.)
Linq to SQL is good for a light-weight, limited use ORM.
I've used both NHibernate and LINQ to SQL. From my point of view it depends on the project, if I need something quick, I would choose L2S, it's so simple to create the dbml mapping and start using it. If I'm developing a more highlevel enterprise solution I would go for the tried and trusted ORM - NHibernate, I find the logging & transaction features simple to use.
LINQ to SQL has a relatively short learning curve, NHibernate has a much steeper learning curve.
LINQ to SQL only supports SQL Server, so if you've an Oracle database then the decision is already made - NHibernate.
I'd recommend checking out http://www.summerofnhibernate.com/ for excellent screencasts on learning NHibernate.
One thing to bear in mind is that NHibernate can be an absolute pig to configure - especially since its based mainly on XML config files because of its roots as the original Hibernate.
Fluent NHibernate goes some way to making this less painful.
Linq certainly though fits in with the general 'way' in which .NET works.
Blockquote Linq certainly though fits in with the general 'way' in which .NET works
Yikes, this kind of sentiment scares me. The RAD stuff built into .net is NOT how dot net works, it's just a tool set for getting prototypes up. .NET allows us to do full DDD applications, w/ high levels of cohesion, seperations of concerns, and allows us to write decoupled code, despite all the attemps ms makes to couple things. I would strongly disagree that .net likes to be coupled, certian tools like to be coupled, i'll include linq to sql in this fray. linq to sql destroys the idea of having a seperate domain model. I cringe at the thought of using my database schema as the underlying model objects. Proper ORM tools should allow us to model our domain first, then link our relational database to these models. NOT the other way around.
I have not tried the Entity Framework, but I definitely would recommend NHibernate over Linq to SQL; The biggest reason I can give is just the control. Linq to SQL likes to have a lot more control over everything, loading the object and maintaining all kinds of tracking information about the object. If you serialize/deserialize, the tracking information can be lost and strange things can happen when saving it again. NHibernate works more as a repository should - You hand it whatever object you want (that you have configured it to understand, of course), and it puts it away in the database, regardless of what you've done with it.