Basically I have three different Core Data entities (A, B, C) and A contains a set of Bs and B contains a set of Cs. These three entities are, however, quite different from each other and they don't have common methods to access each other's children or the values to be displayed in the view.
I'm trying to display these three enties in an NSOutlineView. There's propably other solutions too but I came up with two different ones:
Implementing NSOutlineViewDataSource protocol and handling each of the entities differently.
Consolidate the classes with categories and add common (transient) methods/properties for the NSOutlineView to use. These methods/properties get their actual values from the model entities' properties.
I chose the second option and added getters for the children and the display value. This way, however, the Key-Value Observing does not work anymore and changes in the model are not reflected to the view. I understand why, but I'm not sure how to solve this the right way. I was thinking of some way to be notified of the actual model value changes and forward them to the view.
Is there any easy way to forward those notifications or should I consider some other alternative?
In short, I need to display different kinds of entities in an NSOutlineView and I don't want to mess the model.
Can't you just use relationship A->B->C to fetch the object A and display them in outline view?
After some trial and error, I found out that creating a custom data source is really that simple and decided to go with the first choice. Also, with drag & drop support this feels much more natural way.
The only issue was with outlineView:setObjectValue:forTableColumn:byItem: for which one needs to specify column identifier references. I feel that undirect dependencies are always something one should avoid, but this is a small matter in comparison to making this work nicely.
Related
I have a number of entities that describe different pieces of equipment.
I read these into the EquipmentViewController.
I'm struggling to figure how to use a generic EquipmentDetailViewController that can be used to show and update any of the different entities.
I have it working by having a separate DetailController to manage the details of each entity, but there has to be a better method.
I could possibly merge the entities, but I think that would be unwieldy.
If I could name a variable to hold any entity, I would be set. Is that possible (or correct)?
This must have come up before but I could not find an answer that I understood. If there is one, please point me to it, and I'll close this question.
TIA
I'm trying to implement a proper layer separation in my XPage project. Ideally I'm trying to get to a point where the XML in the XPage contains no SSJS and uses only EL to access Java objects.
So far I've worked out how to load all my data from the domino database into Java Beans (where 1 document = 1 Object, more or less), I'm reading view contents into Java Maps or Lists, and I've managed to display the content of these collections in repeat controls.
What I'm unsure of is how to display the content of a 'form', of a single document, without referencing the domino document. In particular, I'm unsure of how to deal with the 'new document' case. I suppose I create an empty object, then set that object as a data source for the Xpage.
I'm aware that I have to use a ObjectDataSource for this, but I'm unsure where to actually store it. I read an article from Stephan Wissel stating that one shouldn't put them in managed bean, so where can I put it? In one of the scoped variables like viewScope?
Right now I've written an 'ApplicationBean' which is a session-scope Managed Bean where I'm storing all my objects.
What is the best practise? It seems that there are many different ways to meet that goal. Currently I'm exploring Christian Güdemann's XPages Toolkit, which sounds very promising. I know that Samir Pipalia, John Daalsgard and Frank van der Linden have worked up their own frameworks.
So how should I go about it? Any pitfalls?
This is a large topic indeed. As Paul mentioned, Tim's document model classes are a great example of how to do that clearly, and Tim goes into more detail in later episodes in that NotesIn9 series. My own Framework's model objects are fairly similar, though I also added collection managers to handle the dirty business of accessing views. For better or for worse, almost every XPage developer solves this problem in a unique way.
There are a number of ways you can go about implementing this sort of thing, and some of the differences aren't terribly important in normal cases (for example, whether you preload all data from the document when constructing the model object or do lazy fetching to the back-end only as needed), but there are definitely a couple overarching questions to tackle.
Model Access
As you mentioned in the question, one of the big problems is how you actually access model objects from the XPage - how the objects are fetched from the DB or created anew. My Framework's model objects use a conceit of "Manager" objects, which are application-scoped beans that allow getting either named collections (which map to views), model objects by UNID, or a new model object via the keyword "new". Generally, these models (which are Serializable) are then stored in the view scope of the page using them either via <xp:dataContext/>, <xe:objectData/>, or the Framework's own <ff:modelObjectData/>.
I've found it very wise to avoid using managed beans to represent individual objects (like "CurrentWhatever" that you then fill with data on each page), since that muddies up your faces-config in the best case or runs into session problems in the worst (if you put it in session scope, which I rarely use).
How you implement "new" vs. "fetched" model objects depends largely on the tack you take to write your models in the first place, but most boil down to having two constructors: one to take a UNID (at least) to point to existing document and one to create a new one. If you go the "write every properly explicitly in the object with getters and setters" route, the latter would also initialize all of the fields with default values instead of reading them from a document. Internally, you should have fields to store the UNID of the document, which can indicate whether it's new or not - then, your save method can check if this field is empty and create a new document if needed (and then store the new doc's UNID in the field).
Views
It sounds like you're already reading your model collections into Lists, which is good. One down side there, though, is scalability: with small (less than 100) collections, you're likely to not run into any load-speed problems, but afterwards things are going to slow down on initial page load as your code reads in the entire view ahead of time. You can mitigate this somewhat with efficient view reading, but there's a limit. The built-in views are generally speedy because they only load data as needed (they also cheat like hell to do so, but that's another issue).
This is a noble goal to aim for yourself, but doing so to cover all cases is no small feat: you end up running into questions of FT searching, column resorting, efficient data preloading (you don't want to re-open the View object only to read in one entry at a time, but you also don't want to read the whole thing), use in viewPanel and maybe others (which require specialized interfaces), expanding/collapsing categories, and so forth. It's a large sub-topic on its own.
Esoterica
You're also liable to run across other areas that are more difficult than you'd think at first, such as "proper" rich text handing and file attachments. Attachments, in particular, require direct conflict with the XSP framework to get to function properly with custom model objects and the standard upload/download controls.
Case-sensitivity in field names is another potential area of trouble. If you're writing getters and setters for all of your fields, it's a moot point, but if you're going the "thin wrapper" route (which I prefer), it's important to code any intermediary caches/lookups in a way that deal with the fact that "FOO" and "foo" are (basically) the same as item names to Notes, but are distinct in Java. The tack I take is to make extensive use of TreeMaps: if you pass String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER as the parameter to the constructor, it handles treating Strings as generally case-insensitive when used as keys.
Having your model objects work with all the standard controls like that may or may not be a priority - I find it very valuable, so I did a lot of legwork to make it happen with my framework, but if you're just going to do some basic Strings-and-numbers models, you don't necessarily need to worry.
So... yeah, it's a big topic! Depending on how confident you are with Java and the XPages undergirdings, I would suggest either going the route of fairly-simple "beans with getters and setters" for your objects or by looking into the implementation details of one of the existing frameworks (my own or the ones you mentioned). Sadly, there are a lot of little things that will crop up as your code gets more complicated, many of which are non-obvious to deal with.
Jesse Gallagher's Scaffolding framework also accesses Java objects rather than dominoDocument datasources. I've used (and modified) Tim Tripcony's Java objects in his "Using Java in XPages series" from NotesIn9 (the first is episode 132. The source code for what he does is on BitBucket. This basically converts the dominoDocument to a Map. It doesn't cover MIME (Rich Text) or attachments. If it's useful, I can share the amendments I made (e.g. making field names all the same case, to ensure it still works for existing documents, where fields may have been created with LotusScript).
Andrew - Jesse's one of the experts here so I'd read his response carefully.
What I do is I took one of the key pieces of Jesses bigger framework - the "pageControllers" and I use that HEAVILY. So I end up with a Java Class for each XPages to act as the controller. "All" Jesse's page controller framework does is make it a little easier to consume. So you can reference it on each page as "controller" and don't nee dot make individual managed beans for them.
I still will use SOMES SSJS on the XPage if I really need to for things like button events.. some methods that don't have proper getters and setters.. HashMap.size() for instance. But the vast bulk of the code goes into the Java Class. No real need for viewScope variables any more as well.
in the case of a "New Document".. In the controller I'll create a new Java Object that represents the "Current document". I'll bind all the fields to that. If it's new I create a new Object and assign it to the private variable. If I'm loading form somewhere then I take that variable and load the document I want.
I've started to really try and detail this in more recent NotesIn9's. Especially the little series on Java for Xpages developers. I think I got far enough there to show you what you need to know. I do plan on doing a lot more on this topic as soon as I can.
I'm working through a learning project around Core Data on OS X. I have an entity (Foo) in the data store, and in the UI, I use an NSArrayController with bindings to put some (name) field of the Foo objects into an NSTableView, where the user can add/delete/rename (and potentially reorder) the items.
As you know, Core Data storage is unordered. However, I'd like to give it order from the user standpoint. E.g. adding a new row to the table view fixes that new Foo to the end of the list, etc. If the table allows reordering, that order is maintained.
I assume that I should accomplish this by adding some hidden (ie the user never encounters it) "ordinal" field to the Foo entity, which is fine. I'm trying to figure out:
Where is the right place to set this "ordinal" field for new items? Right now, a button is invoking the add: action on the array controller and bindings handles all the rest magically. (I'll need access to the count of items to set it correctly.)
Where is the right place to fixup the whole result set's ordinals on delete or reorder?
Assuming all objects in the store have a reasonable ordinal attribute, what must I do to the UI connections to get the table view to display the results sorted by that ordinal? Is this something I can do purely with bindings? Do I need to subclass... something?
It feels like this is a common enough scenario that people here might have a ready answer. I'm new to Core Data and bindings-- trying to grope my way around. Don't need code; pointers in the right direction would be great. Thanks.
The simplest way to do ordering is to make sure that your entity closely models the data the user actually needs. Remember, Core Data is not a database system. It is an object graph management system with persistence options. Objects have behaviors. That means that you can put a lot more information into Core Data than you normally would for just a database.
A big part of the time, ordering comes naturally by good entity design. For example, the user needs to order Foo objects by when they were added to the graph. Therefore, the Foo object needs a creationDate attribute. Just bind a sort descriptor on the creationDate attribute and you are done.
The biggest challenge is arbitrary ordering that has nothing to do with data being modeled. I like to solve this issue with a lightweight Order entity that relates to the actual ordered entity.
Foo{
name:string
creationDate:date
order<-->Order.foo
}
Order{
foo<-->Foo.order
previous<-->Order.next
next<-->Order.previous
}
As you can see, the Order entities function like an old school linked-list. To insert a new Foo object in the order, just insert a new related Order object in between to existing Order objects. To create an ordered list, just start with Order object whose previous attribute is nil and then walk the next relationships, pulling each foo relationship as you pass.
There are other variations.
But again, entity design is always best. An entity is meant to model/simulate a real-world object, event or condition. If you think about the real-world thing you want to simulate and then include that in the entity and object graph design, then quite often your ordering occurs naturally.
Well this time the question I have in mind is what should be the necessary level of abstraction required to construct an Aggregate.
e.g.
Order is composed on OrderWorkflowHistory, Comments
Do I go with
Order <>- OrderWorkflowHistory <>- WorkflowActivity
Order <>- CommentHistory <>- Comment
OR
Order <>- WorkflowActivity
Order <>- Comment
Where OrderWorkflowHistory is just an object which will encapsulate all the workflow activities that took place. It maintains a list. Order simply delegates the job of maintaining th list of activities to this object.
CommentHistory is similarly a wrapper around (list) comments appended by users.
When it comes to database, ultimately the Order gets written to ORDER table and the list of workflow activities gets written to WORKFLOW_ACTIVITY table. The OrderWorkflowHistory has no importance when it comes to persistence.
From DDD perspective which would be most optimal. Please share your experiences !!
As you describe it, the containers (OrderWorkflowHistory, CommentHistory) don't seem to encapsulate much behaviour. On that basis I'd vote to omit them and manage the lists directly in Order.
One caveat. You may find increasing amounts of behaviour required of the list (e.g. sophisticated searches). If that occurs it may make sense to introduce one/both containers to encapulate that logic and stop Order becoming bloated.
I'd likely start with the simple solution (no containers) and only introduce them if justified as above. As long as external clients make all calls through Order's interface you can refactor Order internally without impacting the clients.
hth.
This is a good question, how to model and enrich your domain. But sooo hard to answer since it vary so much for different domain.
My experince has been that when I started with DDD I ended up with a lots of repositories and a few Value Objects. I reread some books and looked into several DDD code examples with an open mind (there are so many different ways you can implement DDD. Not all of them suits your current project scenario).
I started to try to have in mind that "more value objects, more value objects, more value objects". Why?
Well Value objects brings less tight dependencies, and more behaviour.
In your example above with one to many (1-n) relationship I have solved 1-n rel. in different ways depending on my use cases uses the domain.
(1)Sometimes I create a wrapper class (like your OrderWorkflowHistory) that is a value object. The whole list of child objects is set when object is created. This scenario is good when you have a set of child objects that must be set during one request. For example a Qeustion Weights on a Questionaire form. Then all questions should get their question weight through a method Questionaire.ApplyTuning(QuestionaireTuning) where QuestionaireTuning is like your OrderWorkflowHistory, a wrapper around a List. This add a lot to the domain:
a) The Questionaire will never get in a invalid state. Once we apply tuning we do it against all questions in questionaire.
b) The QuestionaireTuning can provide good access/search methods to retrieve a weight for a specific question or to calculate average weight score... etc.
(2)Another approach has been to have the 1-n wrapper class not being a Value object. This approach suits more if you want to add a child object now and then. The parent cannot be in a invalid state because of x numbers of child objects. This typical wrapper class has Add(Child...) method and several search/contains/exists/check methods.
(3)The third approach is just having the IList exposed as a readonly collection. You can add some search functionality with Extension methods (new in .Net 3.0) but I think it's a design smell. Better to incapsulate the provided list access methods through a list-wrapper class.
Look at http://dddsamplenet.codeplex.com/ for some example of approach one.
I believe the entire discussion with modeling Value objects, entities and who is responsible for what behaviour is the most centric in DDD. Please share your thoughts around this topic...
How would you organize an entity that has 100s of properties? One could go as far to say 100s of properties, with a few Value Objects (as a few of the properties have 2 or 3 properties of their own). But the point is, how to handle the large number of properties.
I am re-creating our model from the ground-up using DDD, and the current issue is how to organize one of main entities that is broken up into many many many subsets. Currently it was written to have about a dozen sub-sets of properties. Like CarInfo() with 50+ properties, CarRankings() with 80+, CarStats(), CarColor(), etc, etc.
Think of it as mass-data stored on a single entity root.
Is it appropriate to have a service for the simple purpose of grouping a large collection of properties? Like CarInfoService that would return a Car() object, along with a large collection or sort.
Another idea would be to look at how the data is displayed. There is no one view that shows all of this data. Instead, they are split up based on their subjective matter. Like CarInfo shows all information about the car. Another would be CarStats that shows all stats of the car. So in this sense, the Application layer can build the underlying details needed for the UI. But, I still need a way to store it in the domain.
I have a mind to just put a number of xml property bags on it and call in the day. lol
This is a tough problem. You've got an aggregate root with lots of branches. But it sounds as if your users only work with certain collections at certain times. You could try pruning the tree a bit.
For instance, in your Car example, if your users are comparing the rankings of different cars, you could treat that as its own module or subsystem. No need to load up the detailed car data associated with each ranking, if the specific task is to figure out which ones rate better than others.
Remember, even though the data may be stored in a parent-child hierarchy in the database, it doesn't necessarily mean your domain will be structured in the same way.
By looking at the tasks or functions your users will perform on your data, you might discover concepts that help to break up that giant aggregate into more manageable chunks.
If you do need to assemble the full root with all of its branches, I think you'll definitely want some sort of service to bring everything together.
I think you should consider to split such an entity in different bounded contexts related via shared idenfitiers. Thus you will have different Cars in different BCs (thus different namespaces, too), and each one will handle only the informations that are related to that particular aspect.
This way, in case of deeper insight, chances are that you will have to refactor only a BC without affecting the others.