I want to follow the DDD philosophy and not access entity objects of an aggregate directly. So, i have to call the root object to get the associated entity. But In other cases I dont always want every associated entity to load when the root is called. Is that the purpose of lazy loading?
How do I access entity objects through the root without loading all the associated objects everytime if i disable lazyloading feature of linq?
EDIT:
For example, If I have a Person as the Root Entity, and the Person has Name, Addresses and OwnedProperties. If I want to get a list of People so that I could display their names, I dont necvessarily want to load up Owned Properties every time on the call to the Repository. Conversely, on another page I may want to show a list of OwnedProperties, but do not want the other information to load with the call. what is the simple way of just calling the Person without the owned property entity other than creating a new person object without that owned properties?
I don't thinks that's possible without lazy loading.
Getting all data at once: Eager Loading
Getting data when accessed: Lazy Loading
According to your edit:
What I do in these situations, is create a 'View' class or a 'DTO' class which just contains the properties that I'm interested in.
For instance, I could have a 'PersonView' class which just has a Name property for instance.
Then, using my OR/M mapper (I use NHibernate), I create a HQL query (or Criteria query) which works on my 'Person' entity. Before I execute the query, I tell NHibernate that I want 'PersonView' objects as a result (I specify a projection). Then, NHibernate is smart enough to execute a query that only retrieves the columns that are necessary to populate the PersonView instances.
One way to avoid lazy loading is just using the object 'id'
Related
I'm developing an application with Domain Drive Design approach. in a special case I have to retrieve the list of value objects of an aggregate and present them. to do that I've created a read only repository like this:
public interface IBlogTagReadOnlyRepository : IReadOnlyRepository<BlogTag, string>
{
IEnumerable<BlogTag> GetAllBlogTagsQuery(string tagName);
}
BlogTag is a value object in Blog aggregate, now it works fine but when I think about this way of handling and the future of the project, my concerns grow! it's not a good idea to create a separate read only repository for every value object included in those cases, is it?
anybody knows a better solution?
You should not keep value objects in their own repository since only aggregate roots belong there. Instead you should review your domain model carefully.
If you need to keep track of value objects spanning multiple aggregates, then maybe they belong to another aggregate (e.g. a tag cloud) that could even serve as sort of a factory for the tags.
This doesn't mean you don't need a BlogTag value object in your Blog aggregate. A value object in one aggregate could be an entity in another or even an aggregate root by itself.
Maybe you should take a look at this question. It addresses a similar problem.
I think you just need a query service as this method serves the user interface, it's just for presentation (reporting), do something like..
public IEnumerable<BlogTagViewModel> GetDistinctListOfBlogTagsForPublishedPosts()
{
var tags = new List<BlogTagViewModel>();
// Go to database and run query
// transform to collection of BlogTagViewModel
return tags;
}
This code would be at the application layer level not the domain layer.
And notice the language I use in the method name, it makes it a bit more explicit and tells people using the query exactly what the method does (if this is your intent - I am guessing a little, but hopefully you get what I mean).
Cheers
Scott
I have an odd issue.
I have client that wants a sharepoint list what is populated from a WCFService. That part is working quite well.
I have a bdcmodel that is mapping the WCF data and I can create an external list from the bdcmodel as well so that is working fine.
The issue I have is that one of the properties in the model is actually a collection of entities called Attributes. The objects in this collection simply have 2 properties Name and Value so really they are just a key value pair.
The client wants to see the list of attributes of the parent entity in the external list. So there would be an Attributes column and within that column would be the list of attributes for each parent object.
Is there even a way to do this? I am looking into Custom Field Types, but it seems like these are really intended to be singular values.
How would I create a list within and external list?
Any help anyone can give would be great even if its just to tell me that there really isn't a stable way to do this so I can go back to the client and tell them we will need to build a custom list to support this because the OOB external list and custom fields and custom field types won't support this kind of nested listing.
I decided to set up the custom field as a string and when I get my collection in from the BdcModel I am serializing it to JSON and then passing it to the field. When the field is viewed in display, edit or new I have overridden the FieldRenderingControl and I am tiling the collection out that way.
I want to serialize an Entity Framework Self-Tracking Entities full object graph (parent + children in one to many relationships) into Json.
For serializing I use ServiceStack.JsonSerializer.
This is how my database looks like (for simplicity, I dropped all irrelevant fields):
I fetch a full profile graph in this way:
public Profile GetUserProfile(Guid userID)
{
using (var db = new AcmeEntities())
{
return db.Profiles.Include("ProfileImages").Single(p => p.UserId == userId);
}
}
The problem is that attempting to serialize it:
Profile profile = GetUserProfile(userId);
ServiceStack.JsonSerializer.SerializeToString(profile);
produces a StackOverflowException.
I believe that this is because EF provides an infinite model that screws the serializer up. That is, I can techincally call: profile.ProfileImages[0].Profile.ProfileImages[0].Profile ... and so on.
How can I "flatten" my EF object graph or otherwise prevent ServiceStack.JsonSerializer from running into stack overflow situation?
Note: I don't want to project my object into an anonymous type (like these suggestions) because that would introduce a very long and hard-to-maintain fragment of code).
You have conflicting concerns, the EF model is optimized for storing your data model in an RDBMS, and not for serialization - which is what role having separate DTOs would play. Otherwise your clients will be binded to your Database where every change on your data model has the potential to break your existing service clients.
With that said, the right thing to do would be to maintain separate DTOs that you map to which defines the desired shape (aka wireformat) that you want the models to look like from the outside world.
ServiceStack.Common includes built-in mapping functions (i.e. TranslateTo/PopulateFrom) that simplifies mapping entities to DTOs and vice-versa. Here's an example showing this:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/servicestack/BF-egdVm3M8/0DXLIeDoVJEJ
The alternative is to decorate the fields you want to serialize on your Data Model with [DataContract] / [DataMember] fields. Any properties not attributed with [DataMember] wont be serialized - so you would use this to hide the cyclical references which are causing the StackOverflowException.
For the sake of my fellow StackOverflowers that get into this question, I'll explain what I eventually did:
In the case I described, you have to use the standard .NET serializer (rather than ServiceStack's): System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer. The reason is that you can decorate navigation properties you don't want the serializer to handle in a [ScriptIgnore] attribute.
By the way, you can still use ServiceStack.JsonSerializer for deserializing - it's faster than .NET's and you don't have the StackOverflowException issues I asked this question about.
The other problem is how to get the Self-Tracking Entities to decorate relevant navigation properties with [ScriptIgnore].
Explanation: Without [ScriptIgnore], serializing (using .NET Javascript serializer) will also raise an exception, about circular
references (similar to the issue that raises StackOverflowException in
ServiceStack). We need to eliminate the circularity, and this is done
using [ScriptIgnore].
So I edited the .TT file that came with ADO.NET Self-Tracking Entity Generator Template and set it to contain [ScriptIgnore] in relevant places (if someone will want the code diff, write me a comment). Some say that it's a bad practice to edit these "external", not-meant-to-be-edited files, but heck - it solves the problem, and it's the only way that doesn't force me to re-architect my whole application (use POCOs instead of STEs, use DTOs for everything etc.)
#mythz: I don't absolutely agree with your argue about using DTOs - see me comments to your answer. I really appreciate your enormous efforts building ServiceStack (all of the modules!) and making it free to use and open-source. I just encourage you to either respect [ScriptIgnore] attribute in your text serializers or come up with an attribute of yours. Else, even if one actually can use DTOs, they can't add navigation properties from a child object back to a parent one because they'll get a StackOverflowException.
I do mark your answer as "accepted" because after all, it helped me finding my way in this issue.
Be sure to Detach entity from ObjectContext before Serializing it.
I also used Newton JsonSerializer.
JsonConvert.SerializeObject(EntityObject, Formatting.Indented, new JsonSerializerSettings { PreserveReferencesHandling = PreserveReferencesHandling.Objects });
This question covncerns my lack of understanding of how to use the core data undo manager and how to restore a NSManagedObject to its state before editing was done.
I am just learning my way around Core Data. I have my NSManagedObject classes set up with their dynamic accessors. I perform a fetch that returns several NSManagedObject entity results. Content from each of these entity results (first name, last name) get put into a table view, and then the user picks one out of the table for detailed view and then editing.
The detail view controller receives a pointer to the selected NSManagedObject entity. As the user edits the fields, the corresponding property value in the NSManagedObject entity is updated. This seemed like the cleanest way to manage these changes.
Now, rather than committing the changes using save, I want to provide a cancel-editing feature that rolls back to what is in the data base for that entity. I really only want to restore the one entity and not perform the entire refetch.
I tried rollback and I tried NSUndoManager (with beginUndoGrouping and endUndoGrouping), and that is not working. I don't think I understand what rollback is really supposed to do.
But in any case, I still want to restore the property values in just that single entity (taking the lazy approach to only fetch what is needed, which is the one entity) so that my detail view controller can refill its view with the correct information. Right now it is using the NSManagedObject entity values, which contain the edited values, which were cancelled.
I suppose I could just start the edit process by creating a copy of the NSManagedObject. If the cancel-editing button is pressed, I could copy it back into the original. (I might even be able to just replace the original with the copy by moving the pointer. But since the pointer has actually been passed through several objects, I'm not sure how to manage the retain number on the copy.)
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Thanks
Using rollback should accomplish what you want and I'm not sure what it doesn't. It is probably an implementation detail error.
You can find the specific managed object/s that were updated but not yet saved by calling the context's updatedObjects.
I'm designing my first project using Core Data (for iPhone) and Im having some issues that might be related with my design approach.
I'm doing an application that allows the user to create an Order (let's say for a restaurant).
I'm using the graphic designer to model my persistence object (i.e. OrdeMO). I add MO to the ead of each name to indicate its a Managed Object.
I use XCode to create the Managed Object Class automatically.
I have created some "DAO" classes that allows you to search or create a new object in the Managed Context.
Now to my problem.
I want to create an OrderMO object to store the order the user is creating, BUT I don't want it to be part of the context until the user actually places it.
I tried creating the object with [OrderMO alloc] but the object I get is "incomplete" and when I try to set any of its attribute I get an error.
I'm assuming the problem is that I need to create the order IN the context in order to use it. Is that so?
I have considered various options:
Create the object in the context and the user rollback if the user discards the order. The problem is that the user might save other context object during the process (like his prefs) so this doesn't work. Is there a way to create the object "inside a separate transaction" of sorts?
Create a wrapper object that will hold the same data as the MO, and then only create the MO when the user place the order. The downside of this is that I have to maintain a new class.
Create an attribute in the MO, such as "placed", and use to filter my searches in the context. The problem with this one is that I will end up with "trash" objects in the domain (i.e. unplaced orders) and I will have to do some cleanup from time to time...
Do I have any other choice?
Any suggestion is appreciated.
Thanks (for reading this long post!)
Gonso
You should create the OrderMO object in the managed object context and then delete it if the user decides not to place the order.
If the context is saved before the object is deleted, the "trash" object will be deleted from the persistent store on the next save (if the context wasn't saved, the "trash" object will never be saved to the persistent store).
The flag to determine if the order was placed or not does not have to live in the OrderMO object as you suggest in option 3. It could be in the view controller that is tracking the order(s) that are being edited. And, again, you won't have "trash" objects because they will have been deleted.