I'm using db4o with groovy (actually griffon). I'm saving dozen of objects into db4o objectSet and see that .yarv file size is about 11Mb. I've checked its content and found that it stores metaClass with all nested fields into every object. It's a waste of space.
Looking for the way to avoid storing of metaClass and therefore reduce the size of result .yarv file, since I'm going to use db4o to store millions of entities.
Should I try callConstructors(true) db4o configuration? Think it would help?
Any help would be highly appreciated.
As an alternative you can just store 'Groovy'-beans instances. Those are compiled down to regular Java-ish classes with no special Groovy specific code attached to them.
Just like this:
class Customer {
// properties
Integer id
String name
Address address
}
class Address{
String street;
}
def customer = new Customer(id:1, name:"Gromit", address:new Address(street:"Fun"))
I don't know groovy but based on your description every groovy object carries metadata and you want to skip storing these objects.
If that is the case installing a "null translator" (TNull class) will cause the "translated" objects to not be stored.
PS: Call Constructor configuration has no effect on what gets stored in the db; it only affects how objects are instantiated when reading from db.
Hope this helps
Related
So I have a Nested Many Schema (eg Users) inside another Schema (eg Computer). My input object to be deserialised by the Schema is complex and does not allow for assignment, and to modify it to allow for assignment is impractical.
The input object (eg ComputerObject) itself does not contain an a value called "Users", but nested in a few other objects is a function that can get the users (eg ComputerObject.OS.Accounts.getUsers()), and I want the output of that function to be used as the value for that field in the schema.
Two possible solutions exist that I know of, I could either define the field as field.Method(#call the function here) or I could do a #post_dump function to call the function and add it to the final output JSON as it can provide both the initial object and the output JSON.
The issue with both of these is that it then doesn't serialise it through the nested Schema Users, which contains more nested Schemas and so on, it would just set that field to be equal to the return value of getUsers, which I don't want.
I have tried to define it in a pre-dump so that it can then be serialised in the dump (note: this schema is used only for dumping and not for loading), but as that takes in the initial object I cannot assign to it.
Basically, I have a thing I am trying to do, and a bunch of hacky workarounds that could make it work but not without breaking other things or missing out on the validation altogether, but no actual solution it seems, anybody know how to do this properly?
For further info, the object that is being input is a complex Django Model, which might give me some avenues Im not aware of, my Django experience is somewhat lacking.
So figured this out myself eventually:
Instead of managing the data-getting in the main schema, you can define the method used in the sub-schema using post_dump with many=True, thus the following code would work correctly:
class User(Schema):
id = fields.UUID
#pre_dump(pass_many=True)
def get_data(self, data, **kwargs):
data = data.Accounts.getUsers()
return data
class Computer(Schema):
#The field will need to be called "OS" in order to correctly look in the "OS" attribute for further data
OS = fields.Nested(User, many=True, data_key="users")
I have an object stored in the ViewScope: ObjectName (valueA:one, valueB:two)
I stored the values using Java:
ObjectObject location = new ObjectObject();
location.put("valueA", FBSUtility.wrap("one"));
location.put("valueB", FBSUtility.wrap("two"));
Utils.setViewScope("ObjectName", location);
How would I go about retrieving these values from the ViewScope? I've tried doing something like the following:
ObjectObject location;
location = (ObjectObject) ExtLibUtil.getViewScope().get("ObjectName");
but I'm not sure what methods to use to get the values or if this is even the correct path. Thanks in advance for any help.
It's a bit unusual to go out of your way to use the FBS classes, but that path is reasonable enough to accomplish what you want. As long as the latter code is executed after the format, that should retrieve the same object and properly cast it to ObjectObject. After that, you could use location.get("valueA"), etc. to get the values by name, and then whatever methods of FBSValue are appropriate (I'd guess stringValue()).
Incidentally, unless you have a specific need to use these internal classes (like if you're doing something fancy with SSJS functions), it may make sense to use just a normal HashMap<String, Object> instead. SSJS and EL can work with those quite well.
I am implementing my own Map in Java, using a custom class I made.
I already implemented the hashCode and equals without any problem.
I just have a question more related into performance and stuff like that.
So I will check many times in my application if a specific value is inside the map, for that, for that I have to create a object and then use the methods containsKey of Map.
My question is...
Is there any other way? without being always creating the object???
I cant have all the objects in my context universe, so that isn't a way...
I know I can just point the object to 'null' after using it, but still, it's not so elegant, creating objects just to check if there is the same object inside =S
Are there any other conventions?
Thank you very much in advance!
EDIT:
Stuff typed = new Stuff(stuff1, stuff2, (char) stuff3);
if(StuffWarehouse.containsKey(typed))
{
//do stuff
}
//after this I won't want to use that object again so...
typed = null;
I am trying to save an Object which implements an Interface say IInterface.
private PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface> Object = new PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface>(Environment.CurrentDirectory + #"\Object");
Since many classes implement the same interface(all of which need to cached), for a generic approach I want to store an Object of type IInterface in the dictionary.
So that anywhere I can pull out that object type cast it as IInterface and use that object's internal implementation of methods etc..
But, as soon as the Esent cache is initialized it throws this error:
Not supported for SetColumn
Parameter name: TColumn
Actual value was IInterface.
I have tried to not use XmlSerializer to do the same but is unable to deserialize an Interface type.Also, [Serializable] attribute cannot be used on top of a Interface, so I am stuck.
I have also tried to make all the implementations(classes) of the Interface as [Serializable] as a dying attempt but to no use.
Does any one know a way out ? Thanks in advance !!!
The only reason that only structs are supported (as well as some basic immutable classes such as string) is that the PersistentDictionary is meant to be a drop-in replacement for Dictionary, SortedDictionary and other similar classes.
Suppose I have the following code:
class MyClass
{
int val;
}
.
.
.
var dict = new Dictionary<int,MyClass>();
var x = new MyClass();
x.val = 1;
dict.Add(0,x);
x.val = 2;
var y = dict[0];
Console.WriteLine(y.val);
The output in this case would be 2. But if I'd used the PersistentDictionary instead of the regular one, the output would be 1. The class was created with value 1, and then changed after it was added to the dictionary. Since a class is a reference type, when we retrieve the item from the dictionary, we will also have the changed data.
Since the PersistentDictionary writes the data to disk, it cannot really handle reference types this way. Serializing it, and writing it to disk is essentially the same as treating the object as a value type (an entire copy is made).
Because it's intended to be used instead of the standard dictionaries, and the fact that it cannot handle reference types with complete transparency, the developers instead opted to support only structs, because structs are value types already.
However, if you're aware of this limitation and promise to be careful not to fall into this trap, you can allow it to serialize classes quite easily. Just download the source code and compile your own version of the EsentCollections library. The only change you need to make to it is to change this line:
if (!(type.IsValueType && type.IsSerializable))
to this:
if (!type.IsSerializable)
This will allow classes to be written to the PersistentDictionary as well, provided that it's Serializable, and its members are Serializable as well. A huge benefit is that it will also allow you to store arrays in there this way. All you have to keep in mind is that it's not a real dictionary, therefore when you write an object to it, it will store a copy of the object. Therefore, updating any of your object's members after adding them to the PersistentDictionary will not update the copy in the dictionary automatically as well, you'd need to remember to update it manually.
PersistentDictionary can only store value-structs and a very limited subset of classes (string, Uri, IPAddress). Take a look at ColumnConverter.cs, at private static bool IsSerializable(Type type) for the full restrictions. You'd be hitting the typeinfo.IsValueType() restriction.
By the way, you can also try posting questions about PersistentDictionary at http://managedesent.codeplex.com/discussions .
-martin
After spending a year working with the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk namespace, I just discovered yesterday the Entity.FormattedValues property contains the text value for Entity specific (ie Local) Option Set texts.
The reason I didn't discover it before, is there is no early bound method of getting the value. i.e. entity.new_myOptionSet is of type OptionSetValue which only contains the int value. You have to call entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"] to get the string text value of the OptionSetValue.
Therefore, I'd like to get the crmsrvcutil to auto-generate a text property for local option sets. i.e. Along with Entity.new_myOptionSet being generated as it currently does, Entity.new_myOptionSetText would be generated as well.
I've looked into the Microsoft.Crm.Services.Utility.ICodeGenerationService, but that looks like it is mostly for specifying what CodeGenerationType something should be...
Is there a way supported way using CrmServiceUtil to add these properties, or am I better off writing a custom app that I can run that can generate these properties as a partial class to the auto-generated ones?
Edit - Example of the code that I would like to be generated
Currently, whenever I need to access the text value of a OptionSetValue, I use this code:
var textValue = OptionSetCache.GetText(service, entity, e => e.New_MyOptionSet);
The option set cache will use the entity.LogicalName, and the property expression to determine the name of the option set that I'm asking for. It will then query the SDK using the RetrieveAttriubteRequest, to get a list of the option set int and text values, which it then caches so it doesn't have to hit CRM again. It then looks up the int value of the New_MyOptionSet of the entity and cross references it with the cached list, to get the text value of the OptionSet.
Instead of doing all of that, I can just do this (assuming that the entity has been retrieved from the server, and not just populated client side):
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
but the "new_myoptionset" is no longer early bound. I would like the early bound entity classes that gets generated to also generate an extra "Text" property for OptionSetValue properties that calls the above line, so my entity would have this added to it:
public string New_MyOptionSetText {
return this.GetFormattedAttributeValue("new_myoptionset"); // this is a protected method on the Entity class itself...
}
Could you utilize the CrmServiceUtil extension that will generate enums for your OptionSets and then add your new_myOptionSetText property to a partial class that compares the int value to the enums and returns the enum string
Again, I think specifically for this case, getting CrmSvcUtil.exe to generate the code you want is a great idea, but more generally, you can access the property name via reflection using an approach similar to the accepted answer # workarounds for nameof() operator in C#: typesafe databinding.
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
// becomes
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues
[
// renamed the class from Nameof to NameOf
NameOf(Xrm.MyEntity).Property(x => x.new_MyOptionSet).ToLower()
];
The latest version of the CRM Early Bound Generator includes a Fields struct that that contains the field names. This allows accessing the FormattedValues to be as simple as this:
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues[MyEntity.Fields.new_MyOptionSet];
You could create a new property via an interface for the CrmSvcUtil, but that's a lot of work for a fairly simple call, and I don't think it justifies creating additional properties.