I'm looking for examples of patterns in existing iOS apps (Swift preferred, but I guess it doesn't matter) to get some ideas on how to handle models when working with Firebase (or any NoSQL DB). The complication is due to 1) the way in which Firebase listens for changes to data, and 2) keeping the db request logic out of the models.
So let's say I have something like this:
struct User {
let name: String
let checkin: Checkin
}
struct Checkin {
let name: String
let coordinates: Double
}
Now when I decide I want data in my view controller, I'll do something like Database.database()..reference()... and have a method on my model parse the JSON and insert it into the model. Now what happens when it gets to a relationship property (in this case, checkin when creating an instance of User)? If I want the full user model with all child relationships, I'm only going to get back something like { checkin: someRandomCheckinId } from Firebase. I could make another call to get the checkin by ID, but I'd have to do that logic in my model when parsing the data received from Firebase, which doesn't seem ideal - it seems that logic best belongs on the VC (or a separate data manager class called by the VC). Is there a better way?
Additionally, I want to be able to listen for changes given it's a main feature of Firebase. I can't imagine polluting my model with a bunch of listeners is a good thing. 🤔
Any examples of repos with a good pattern for this would be great to help wrap my head around an appropriate solution. Thanks in advance!
There are two parts to this question. The first is how to structure data in a NoSQL document store. The second is how to structure an application in a modern OO language. Both expand well past the reach of Firebase and Swift.
For the first part, the advice I would give you to start with is that you should keep related data together for fast access. There is normally a space penalty when working with these type of databases as data is duplicated. This is ok as space is relatively cheap compared to time. In your example, if you often want to get all the 'Checkins' when you get a 'User' then store the 'Checkins' for a user in that user. If you are used to working with RDBs then you need to remember that with this type of storage, you can store layers of data and an attribute can have multiple values. Make sure you read the Firebase documentation on how data is accessed as they have some recommendations for how data should be stored to avoid wasting time and space. The main idea is to keep data flatter rather than too many layers deep and remember that getting a parent also gets all its children. This usually involves some data duplication.
For the second part of the question, you are going to have to dig a little deeper. Start by reading up on the software engineering principles. The SOLID principles are the most important but there are many others that you should abide by. One principle states that you should keep related data and behaviour together. Another states that each module(class) should have a single responsibility(reason to change). Most iOS developers follow the very bad development practice of loading the ViewControllers with all the application logic which violates many principles. Model classes are not just for storing state, they should also contain behaviour related to that state. A ViewController should not be accessing a database and should not know anything about the database. This should happen somewhere in your application model. If data is accessed in a specific way for each type then store that logic with the type. If much of it is the same for all types then abstract that part out.
Related
I'm trying to figure out how to use Core Data in my App. I already have in mind what the object graph would be like at runtime:
An Account object owns a TransactionList object.
A TransactionList object contains all the transactions of the account. Rather than being a flat list, it organizes transactions per day. So it contains a list of DailyTransactions objects sorted by date.
A DailyTransactions contains a list of Transaction objects which occur in a single day.
At first I thought Core Data was an ORM so I thought I might just need two tables: Account table and Transaction table which contained all transactions and set up the above object graph (i.e., organizing transactions per date and generating DailyTransactions objects, etc.) using application code at run time.
When I started to learn Core Data, however, I realized Core Data was more of an object graph manager than an ORM. So I'm thinking about using Core Data to implement above runtime object relationship directly (it's not clear to me what's the benefit but I believe Core Data must have some features that will be helpful).
So I'm thinking about a data model in Core Data like the following:
Acount <--> TransactionList -->> DailyTransactions -->> Transaction
Since I'm still learning Core Data, I'm not able to verify the design yet. I suppose this is the right way to use Core Data. But doesn't this put too many implementation details, instead of raw data, in persistent store? The issue with saving implementation details, I think, is that they are far more complex than raw data and they may contain duplicate data. To put it in another way, what exactly does the "data" in data model means, raw data or any useful runtime objects?
An alternative approach is to use Core Data as ORM by defining a data model like:
Account <-->> Transactions
and setting up the runtime object graph using application code. This leads to more complex application code but simpler database design (I understand user doesn't need to deal with database directly when using Core Data, but still it's good to have a simpler system). That said, I doubt this is not the right way to use Cord Data.
A more general question. I did little database programming before, but I had the impression that there was usually a business object layer above plain old data object layer in server side programming framework like J2EE. In those architectures, objects that encapsulate application business are not same as the objects loaded from database. It seems that's not the case with Core Data?
Thanks for any explanations or suggestions in advance.
(Note: the example above is an simplification. A transaction like transfer involves two accounts. I ignore that detail for simplification.)
Now that I read more about the Core Data, I'll try to answer my own question since no one did it. I hope this may help other people who have the same confusion as I did. Note the answer is based on my current (limited) understanding.
1. Core Data is an object graph manager for data to be persistently stored
There are a lot articles on the net emphasizing that Core Data manages object graph and it's not an ORM or database. While they might be technically correct, they unfortunately cause confusion to beginner like me. In my opinion, it's equally important to point out that objects managed by Core Data are not arbitrary runtime objects but those that are suitable for being saved in database. By suitable it means all these objects conform to principles of database schema design.
So, what' a proper data model is very much a database design question (it's important to point out this because most articles try to ask their readers to forget about database).
For example, in the account and transactions example I gave above, while I'd like to organize transactions per day (e,g., putting them in a two-level list, first by date, then by transaction timestamp) at runtime. But the best practice in database design is to save all transactions in a single table and generating the two-level list at runtime using application code (I believe so).
So the data model in Core Data should be like:
Account <->> Transaction
The question left is where I can add the code to generate the runtime structure (e.g., two-level list) I'd like to have. I think it's to extend Account class.
2. Constraints of Core Data
The fact that Core Data is designed to work with database (see 1) explains why it has some constraints on the data model design (i.e., attribute can't be of an arbitrary type, etc.).
While I don't see anyone mentioned this on the net, personally I think relationship in Core Data is quite limited. It can't be of a custom type (e.g, class) but has to be a variable (to-one) or an array (to-many) at run time. That makes it far less expressive. Note: I guess it's so due to some technical reason. I just hope it could be a class and hence more flexible.
For example, in my App I actually have complex logic between Account and its Transaction and want to encapsulate it into a single class. So I'm thinking to introduce an entity to represent the relationship explicitly:
Account <->> AccountTranstionMap <-> Transaction
I know it's odd to do this in Core Data. I'll see how it works and update the answer when I finish my app. If someone knows a better way to not do this, please let me know!
3. Benefits of Core Data
If one is writing a simple App, (for example, an App that data modal change are driven by user and hence occurs in sequence and don't have asynchronous data change from iCloud), I think it's OK to ignore all the discussions about object graph vs ORM, etc. and just use the basic features of Core Data.
From the documents I have read so far (there are still a lot I haven't finished), the benefits of Core Data includes automatic mutual reference establishment and clean up, live and automatically updated relationship property value, undo, etc. But if your App is not complex, it might be easier to implement these features using application code.
That said, it's interesting to learn a new technology which has limitation but at the same time can be very powerful in more complex situations. BTW, just curious, is there similar framework like Core Data on other platforms (either open source or commercial)? I don't think I read about similar things before.
I'll leave the question open for other answers and comments :) I'll update my answer when I have more practical experience with Core Data.
I've looked through a lot of answers on stack overflow but haven't found anything that answers this question.
I have an app where you download data in a downloadVC (there are many other VC's). I want to be able to access the currentUser and the downloaded data in the downloadVC whenever I go to the downloadVC without re-downloading the data.
The options I've looked at so far are:
Making a singleton with data that I could access at all points of the app (feels like the easiest way but people have warned me singletons aren't good).
Making a class var of download VC. (This is the solution I understand the least, what is the scope of a class var? Is it just the same as making a singleton?)
Passing it around (This wouldn't work for me as the app is too big to have it passed between every VC)
Saving it to user defaults, (how quick is accessing something user defaults?)
Please tell me if this questions doesn't fit the stack overflow rules?
Singletons are usually implemented using a static variable, so your first and second options are quite similar.
There is a "singletons are evil" sect that's very vocal in the development community lately.
Personally, I think they have their place and can sometimes clean up your design. I recently worked on a project that had been designed by a member of the "Singletons are evil" cult who then went to absurd lengths to pass a data manager object around to every other object in the project, resulting in a lot of overhead and more than a few bugs when the object got dropped.
There is no one answer. You need to weigh the pros and cons of different approaches for your app.
I would caution against over-using UserDefaults though. That's intended for saving small bits of data like user preference settings, not big data objects.
Basically, adding any networking logic inside the view controller is a first big mistake that you could make. So move that to another class that is responsible only for sending network requests and handling the responses.
Then, when you have the data downloaded, you'll probably need something to manage the cache - no matter whether it is a set of big files or a couple of small strings, the logic would be the same - to have all this cache controlled by one object. This cache manager could save the objects to local files, use CoreData or simply keep those objects in memory - this is for you to decide, depending on what kind of app are you creating.
Now, the cache manager could basically be your endpoint for view controllers, since it will either download the data and return it to view controller after the request's success, or return it immediately. The view controllers don't really have to know about any networking at all.
But, how the view controllers will find out about the cache manager?
You could either pass around the reference to it, but you've already said that this is impossible in your app. So basically another solution would be to use the hated singleton pattern. I too personally think this is a bad pattern, however you cannot create any app without it, since you always must have at least one singleton, which is AppDelegate.
Anyway, a good idea might be to create a singleton class (or maybe even use the AppDelegate for that purpose), that would be responsible for handling the dependencies between the classes responsible for networking, the cache manager, and any other classes that you might need to perform some logic behind your app. This is actually a pattern called Dependency Injection Container. It would allow you to easily access your model classes through this container, without neither having a ton of singletons that will eventually make you confused, nor creating some ridiculous logic of passing around the model objects.
The simple answer is, yes, you use a singleton.
That's exactly correct.
Note that whether you use
SQLite.swift,
core data,
realm.io,
write to a text file,
a baas such as Firebase or Back4app (aka Parse),
or literally just "keep it in an array" ("in memory"),
Yes, the answer to your question is you'll have singleton which is where you "keep - access" that stuff. Exactly correct.
That seems to be what you are asking here.
Given that ...
... if you are then additionally asking "what's the easiest / best / most modern way ("in my data singleton") to store data locally in my app", the real-world answer in 2017 is
realm.io
Previously you used Apple's core data. Which is (a) spectacular (b) extremely difficult. Importantly though: realm.io and SQLite are identically available on both Android and iOS; in very many cases, on real world projects today, this eliminates Core Data from consideration.
However. All of this is somewhat moot. Don't forget ...
We now live in a "baas world"
You can't eg. "get a job programming iOS or Android" any more. You get a job because of how good you are / your specific expertise areas in either Firebase, Parse, PubNub, Cloudbase, or whatever. For better or worse, being able to move buttons and tables around in Xcode, Studio, is not really a thing anymore. (There are a minuscule number of hyper-specialities, like GPU programming, dynamic mesh, or the like, that are exceptions to this.) Similarly, say you're a hobbyist making your own app or startup: again in that case, it's just entirely and totally about what backend you work with. (And that applies equally to games or business/social apps.) There are simply no "local, static" apps any more. (Again, applies equally to games or business/social apps.)
(Note indeed that realm.io, which is "the" simple, obvious way to keep data on apps these days - indeed, those guys have/are moving to becoming, indeed, a OCC cloud baas-paas-whatever service themselves. We'll probably all just use realm.io instead of Firebase in a year.)
So in a sense the answer to your question is something like Firebase or back4app. But: then within your app, you centralize that to a singleton, indeed (the first part of your question).
But note....................
it is extremely unlikely, at the beginner level, that any of this will be relevant: Just keep the data in an array! That's all there is to it. OK, once in a billion years when a user happens to literally restart the device or your app, the app will reload data. So what?
Note that a common name for your "get data here" Singleton is
Local
So,
import Foundation
often .. import SQLite, Realm, Firebase or whatever
public let local = Local.shared
open class Local {
static let shared = Local()
fileprivate init() {
print("'Local' singleton running AOK")
}
// could be this simple..
var clients:[String:[Blah]] = [:]
var stock:[String:String] = [:]
func loadStockInfoFromWWW() { ... }
func calculateQuantityInfoOrWhatever() { ... }
// or it could be more like this..
func reloadClientsFromParse() { ... }
func sendNewDataToFirebaseParse() { ... }
.... etc
you then just access it from anywhere in your app like
local.updateFromWeb()
height = local.stock["ladders"][idNumber].size.h
and so on.
That's all there is to it.
(A word on singleton code style.)
It depends on file complexity & size. If you don't need to parse the contents, or they're simple to parse, but it's large in size then I'd recommend using the Documents folder and retrieving it from there, if it's small or involves complex processing then a singleton acting as a manager would be my approach as it feels appropriate.
I have an approach in designing MVC components which is to separate the Data Model (DB persistence) from the View Model of my component despite they represent theoretically the same element. I just map later the two models.
Do you think it's a good approach? Or I should try to make only one model?
When I run into issues like this, I try to create only the necessary classes that I need. This will help to keep the project smaller and to avoid confusion as to what class or object you are supposed to be using. I always try to picture the next guy coming and working on my code and what he would think of and where he would stumble in my logic. I would only use a ViewModel if you are creating objects from multiple Models you retrieved from the database.
Based on your statement it seems that you've created a duplicate data model which is mapped to a second model and would like to know if this is an optimal approach.
Recommendation
I don't think this is necessarily an optimal solution, but a lot depends on your use-case. What I typically do is create a data model that represents unique entities. Then I create a data management class that handles the interactions and use-cases of the data. The data manager would cover things like adding/removing custom objects from a collection. The approach I take is basically a lightweight approach to Apple's use of it's Core Data Framework (docs).
So for example one could use a dictionary, array, or set (or some combination of these) to manage the collection of custom objects together with a shared singleton object acting as a data manager and leveraging built-in archiving/unarchiving capabilities to handle a data graph requirements for an app. Actually,y the result is about the same as a simple use of Core Data, so I'd definitely recommend you get familiar with the standard approach used by Apple (it's embedded into every project template by default).
The good news is that once you choose an approach and develop it very carefully you could end up with a sharable resource that can be reused in many different projects. So for example, the data manager class might encapsulate the movement of data internally (files, local urls, etc) and externally (urls, soa, etc) and even deal with caching, serialization, etc.
I use only classes with get / set methods that operate a mapping of the DB and the VIEW. These are development policies. Using hybrid objects have a greater lightness of the project is in development at runtime. In some scenarios, there may be redundancy in the classes. It is important to aspire to the perfection of the code :-)
I have a general design question for dealing with data. I currently am working on an app that stores about 100+ different unique properties (mostly integers, some strings) and am currently using a single object of a custom class to manage all of them.
I need the data to be "persistent" throughout the app so I currently pass the object via segues. I have managed to build 20+ views, most with their own view controller. I am very new to Objective-C and iOS development and have a feeling this is a bad practice.
I do not understand that much about core data and am not sure if it would be a better solution for me. I have also read about singletons and have heard mixed things about using them for this sort of solution.
In the future, I will need to permanently store the data that is held temporarily in the custom class I have written.
What is the best way to deal with this situation? Is it standard practice to pass the object around over many different views?
If the data needs to permeate through the entire app then a singleton might be a good way to go.
In game dev there is a pattern called the chalkboard pattern that allows any part of the game to read and write to the chalkboard. This can be used for health points, scores, etc...
This would suit you well too. Rather than pushing your data model around all the time just use the singleton to access each bit/ If the data needs to be updated then store the updates to the singleton.
The thing to avoid is using the singleton just because its there. If a bit of data needs to get from one place to another then don't just use the singleton if it isn't necessary.
I'm developing an iOS application using Core Data. I want to have the persistent store located in a shared location, such as a network drive, so that multiple users can work on the data (at different times i.e. concurrency is not part of the question).
But I also want to offer the ability to work on the data "offline", i.e. by keeping a local persistent store on the iPad. So far, I read that I could do this to some degree by using the persistent store coordinator's migration function, but this seems to imply the old store is then invalidated. Furthermore, I don't necessarily want to move the complete store "offline", but just a part of it: going with the simple "company department" example that Apple offers, I want users to be able to check out one department, along with all the employees associated with that department (and all the attributes associated with each employee). Then, the users can work on the department data locally on their iPad and, some time later, synchronize those changes back to the server's persistent store.
So, what I need is to copy a core data object from one store to another, along with all objects referenced through relationships. And this copy process needs to also ensure that if an object already exists in the target persistent store, that it's overwritten rather than a new object added to the store (I am already giving each object a UID for another reason, so I might be able to re-use the UID).
From all I've seen so far, it looks like there is no simple way to synchronize or copy Core Data persistent stores, is that a fair assessment?
So would I really need to write a piece of code that does the following:
retrieve object "A" through a MOC
retrieve all objects, across all entities, that have a relationship to object "A"
instantiate a new MOC for the target persistent store
for each object retrieved, check the target store if the object exists
if the object exists, overwrite it with the attributes from the object retrieved in steps 1 & 2
if the object doesn't exist, create it and set all attributes as per object retrieved in steps 1 & 2
While it's not the most complicated thing in the world to do, I would've still thought that this requirement for "online / offline editing" is common enough for some standard functionality be available for synchronizing parts of persistent stores?
Your point of views greatly appreciated,
thanks,
da_h-man
I was just half-kidding with the comment above. You really are describing a pretty hard problem - it's very difficult to nail this sort of synchronization, and there's seldom, in any development environment, going to be a turn-key solution that will "just work". I think your pseudo-code description above is a pretty accurate description of what you'll need to do. Although some of the work of traversing the relationships and checking for existing objects can be generalized, you're talking about some potentially complicated exception handling situations - for example, if updating an object, and only 1 out 5 related objects is somehow out of date, do you throw away the update or apply part of it? You say "concurrency" is not a part of the question, but if multiple users can "check out" objects at the same time, unless you plan to have a locking mechanism on those, you would start having conflicts when trying to make updates.
Something to check into are the new features in Core Data for leveraging iCloud - I doubt that's going to help with your problem, but it's generally related.
Since you want to be out on the network with your data, another thing to consider is whether Core Data is the right fit to your problem in general. Since Core Data is very much a technology designed to support the UI and MVC pattern in general, if your data needs are not especially bound to the UI, you might consider another type of DB solution.
If you are in fact leveraging Core Data in significant ways beyond just modeling, in terms of driving your UI, and you want to stick with it, I think you are correct in your analysis: you're going to have to roll your own solution. I think it will be a non-trivial thing to build and test.
An option to consider is CouchDB and an iOS implementation called TouchDB. It would mean adopting more of a document-oriented (JSON) approach to your problem, which may in fact be suitable, based on what you've described.
From what I've seen so far, I reckon the best approach is RestKit. It offers a Core Data wrapper that uses JSON to move data between remote and local stores. I haven't fully tried it yet, but from what the documentation reads, it sounds quite powerful and ideally suited for my needs.
You definetly should check these things:
Parse.com - cloud based data store
PFIncrementalStore https://github.com/sbonami/PFIncrementalStore - subclass of NSIncrementalStore which allows your Persistent Store Coordinator to store data both locally and remotely (on Parse Cloud) at the same time
All this stuff are well-documented. Also Parse.com is going to release iOS local datastore SDK http://blog.parse.com/2014/04/30/take-your-app-offline-with-parse-local-datastore/ wich is going to help keep your data synced.