I am trying to realize a UI5 app, where visibility and editability of each control in my view is controllable through a customizing table in our SAP ERP.
At this time my idea is a entity type which contains these information for each property. Therefore my entity does have two additional properties for controlling visibility and editability. E.g.:
Persnr
PersnrVis
PersnrEdit
Lastname
LastnameVis
LastnameEdit
... (and so on) ...
This concept works, but it will bloat my entities. For me it looks more like a workaround, than a elaborate strategy.
Does someone have experiences which such a situation?
Over the past two years, it turns out that complex types are the most flexible way to solve this problem.
As Marc already wrote, this is exactly how we do it today.
I am sorry for the confusion. Our entities (e.g. Employee) consist of several complex types. Each complex type (e.g. Status) has a value (e.g. 5) and sometimes a descr (e.g. declined) (and sometimes multiple values + descr). The name of the complex type (e.g. Status) can then be the key to get the corresponding config set. The config set stores the editability, visibility and a translated label of all properties from a single complex type.
Related
As a complete novice programmer I am trying to populate my neo4j DB with data from heterogeneous sources. For this I am trying to use the Neo4jClient C# API. The heterogeneity of my data comes from a custom, continuously evolving DSL/DSML/metamodel that defines the possible types of elements, i.e. models, thus creating classes for each type would not be ideal.
As I understand, my options are the following:
Have a predefined class for each type of element: This way I can easily serialize my objects that is if all properties are primitive types or arrays/lists.
Have a base class (with a Dictionary to hold properties) that I use as an interface between the models that I'm trying to serialize and neo4j. I've seen an example for this at Can Neo4j store a dictionary in a node?, but I don't understand how to use the converter (defined in the answer) to add a node. Also, I don't see how an int-based dictionary would allow me to store Key-Value pairs where the keys (that are strings) would translate to Property names in neo4j.
Generate a custom query dynamically, as seen at https://github.com/Readify/Neo4jClient/wiki/cypher#manual-queries-highly-discouraged. This is not recommended and possibly is not performant.
Ultimately, what I would like to achieve is to avoid the need to define a separate class for every type of element that I have, but still be able to add properties that are defined by types in my metamodel.
I would also be interested to somehow influencing the serializer to ignore non-compatible properties (similarly to XmlIgnore), so that I would not need to create a separate class for each class that has more than just primitive types.
Thanks,
J
There are 2 problems you're trying to solve - the first is how to program the C# part of this, the second is how to store the solution to the first problem.
At some point you'll need to access this data in your C# code - unless you're going fully dynamic you'll need to have some sort of class structure.
Taking your 3 options:
Please have a look at this question: neo4jclient heterogenous data return which I think covers this scenario.
In that answer, the converter does the work for you, you would create, delete etc as before, the converter just handles the IDictionary instance in that case. The IDictionary<int, string> in the answer is an example, you can use whatever you want, you could use IDictionary<string, string> if you wanted, in fact - in that example, all you'd need to do would be changing the IntString property to be an IDictionary<string,string> and it should just work.
Even if you went down the route of using custom queries (which you really shouldn't need to) you will still need to bring back objects as classes. Nothing changes, it just makes your life a lot harder.
In terms of XmlIgnore - have you tried JsonIgnore?
Alternatively - look at the custom converter and get the non-compatible properties into your DB.
I am in phase of designing architecture of my web application. I want to work with asp.net mvc5 and oracle database at back end.
One basic requirement of my project is that the application's admin users can add/remove Form Fields. I want to physically add/remove columns in my database tables at run time (not design time).
How can I achieve it in mvc and how the models can be updated dynamically at run time?
Should I use some ORM or how I design data access layer for that?
I just need suggestions and hints for the architecture design approaches.
Instead of physically adding and removing the fields at runtime you can try the following table structure
Field Name Field Type
CustomField1Name Nvarchar(256)
CustomField1Value Nvarchar(Max)
CustomField1IsVisible Bool
CustomField1FieldType Nvarchar(32) [char/numeric/bool etc]
CustomField1Required Bool
CustomField2Name Nvarchar(256)
CustomField2Value Nvarchar(Max)
CustomField2IsVisible Bool
CustomField2FieldType Nvarchar(32)
CustomField2Required Bool
If you need any more field specific information like custom validation you can add here.
Repeat this for how many custom fields you want . Due to this design, in run time there will be no structure changes in DB level. All changes you can do in coding level.
Entity attribute value pattern is one way to go. In my opinion this becomes an anti-pattern if overused. This has some shortcomings such as storing every value as a string. You might find it hard to parse "true+" as a bool. You could also do this in a weakly typed fashion or weakly typed datasets. If you want to go this route you would actually be creating columns. Do not give users rights to create columns, give them rights to execute a proc that creates columns.
I've been looking at the different approaches to solving the mass assignment issues with MVC as well as doing things the right way.
So far, the 2 approaches which I think are the best are below: (I have also looked at AutoMapper)
1: Value Injecter - This seems to do the job pretty well, but also relies on a third party library
2: Using the UpdateModel method and bind to a View Model interface which exposes a subset of the required properties in your domain model. http://www.codethinked.com/easy-and-safe-model-binding-in-aspnet-mvc
Before I jump in and code my whole application (without spending a week on each to find out which one I actually like) using one of the above practices, does anybody have real world experience of using these 2 methods and which one you would recommend?
in simple scenarios where you have only text fields matching strings/int properties anything will do just as well.
but when you have properties on the viewmodel that match objects in the model (FK in the DB) it gets a bit more complex, you might need to pull data from the DB for some individual props and map some property of that object to the ViewModel, stuff like that.
prodinner asp.net mvc demo application uses valueinjecter in Mapper classes, there's a pdf where this approach is explained, you can download it here: http://prodinner.codeplex.com/
General consensus from all the reading I've done on this topic is that if you're going from a Entity or Domain Model (from your database) to a View Model to show on the form feel free to use automation tools like AutoMapper or whatever your preferred tool is to automate it.
If you are however going from a Input or Form Model (the object populated via the automatic model binding) back into to your Entity or Domain Model, do not automate this. It's a slippery slope to navigate correctly and can result in your automation tool mapping over fields that were not intended/permitted. Everything I've read about this (and various implementations myself) suggest the best practice is to do this manually/explicitly. It's pretty straight forward and object initializers can make it very easy to read.
var person = new Person()
{
PersonId = model.PersonId,
FirstName = model.FirstName,
LastName= model.LastName
}
personService.UpdatePerson(person);
Something along that line.
I have an interesting question to pose; when should one create a model class/object as opposed to setting a boolean flag for data stored in a database?
For example, say I have a Person class that has boolean flags for President, Guard, and PartTime. This class/model is treated differently depending on the value of the flags. So the President gets different privileges in the system from the Guard and from the PartTime(r).
When would one use Single Table Inheritance to represent this information and when would one just continue to use the boolean flag?
My instinct is to convert these to different Objects using STI since this seems more OO to me. Checking booleans seems wrong in some way, but I can also see a place for it.
Update for clarification
Let me use another example because the one above has too many cases involved with it.
I am working on a CMS application that contains Pages, a Page can be Public, Private, Shared, Hidden, or Default (meaning it is what you get when you don't specify a page in the url). Right now, we have a Page model and everything is a boolean flag - Public, Default, Shared.
I am not convinced this is the best method of handling this. Especially since we have rules governing what page can be what, i.e., the Default page or a Shared page must be a Public page whereas a Private page is just Private.
I agree with the comment below that Roles for the Person example makes a lot of sense. I am not sure that for the Page example it does.
And to make things more complicated, there can only be one Default page and one Shared page. STI may allow me to validate this, but I am not sure since there can be many default and shared pages in the table (just not associated with a particular site).
Note: The context for the question is a Ruby on Rails application, but is applicable for any object-oriented language.
First of all, let's establish what single-table inheritance typically is used for. It is a way to combine the storage and behaviour of multiple things that resemble each other. Sticking to a CMS, an example would be a table with posts, which could be either a Comment or an Article. They share similar data and behavior, but are ultimately different things. Whether or not something is a comment is not the state of the object, it's an identity.
In your example, however, whether or not a page is public or private, shared or not, or hidden, appears to be a part of the state of the page. Although single-table inheritance might technically work (provided all subclasses are mutually exclusive), it's not a good fit.
State should be implemented in one or more columns. An attribute that represents a certain dual state can be specified as a boolean; yes or no. If a page always is either private or public, you can model this as a single boolean column, private. If it's not private it's public (or the other way around).
In some cases you may want to store three or more different states that are mutually exclusive. For example, a page could be either private, or public, or shared (I don't know if this is the case -- let's pretend that it is). In this case a boolean will not help. You could use multiple boolean flags, but as you correctly observe that is very confusing. The easiest way is to model this as an enumeration. Or when you lack this (as is the case with Rails), simply use string values with a special meaning and add a validation that ensures the only values you use are one of private, public or shared.
Sometimes certain combinations of different state variables are invalid. For example, a page might be a draft or approved (reflected by a boolean column approved); and it is also either public or private (also reflected by a boolean column). We could decide that a page should must be approved before it is made public. In this case we declare one of the states invalid. This should be reflected by the validation of your model. It is important to realise that a draft, public page is not fundamentally impossible, it's only impossible because you decide it should not happen.
When creating your model, make a careful distinction between the attributes that reflect actual properties and states of the subjects in the real world, and the business rules that determine what should be possible and what shouldn't be. The first should be modelled as columns, the second as validations.
Original answer:
One obvious difference is that boolean flags allow a Person to be marked as president and guard at the same time. If your model should allow these situations, single-table inheritance will not work for you.
On the other hand, maybe a Person that is a president behaves differently from a regular person; and a single person can only be president or guard. In this case inheritance may be a better fit. I don't think you should model "part time" as a subclass, though. That is an attribute in any case.
There is also an important third option, one where you completely separate the job or role of a person from the model. One person has one (or many?) jobs, which are or are not part-time. The advantage of this model is that you separate attributes of a person from the attributes of their job. After all, people change jobs, but that does not make them literally a different person. Ultimately this seems to me the most realistic way to model your situation.
I prefer not to use a flag for this, but also not to subclass Person for this. Rather, attach a Role (or if you have someone who's both a President and a Guard, a set of Roles) with subclasses of Role governing the prvileges.
Personally, I am neither a President nor a Guard, but I am both a Programmer and a Musician, and have a few other roles at times (in fact, I was a Guard for a while simultaneous with being a Student many years ago.).
A Person has-a Role.
I have found that whenever I think "Hm, I have these 3 types of behavior and they do look like subclasses, but need to change at runtime", look at a strategy or state pattern. It usually fits very well and usually also beats a simple boolean flag with respect to keeping responsiblities apart.
In your case, this heuristic would say that you have a Person with an attribute of type AccessRights, which decides if a certain action can be performed or not. Person either gives access to this object or delegates appropiate methods. After that, you have PresidentialRights, GuardRights and PartTimeRights implemetning this AccessRights interface and you are good to go.
Given this, you never need to change the person class whenever a new type of access right appears, you might need to change the person class if a new type of action appears (depends on if you delegate and how you delegate) and in order to add new types of AccessRights, you just add new implementations of AccessRights.
the answer is that it is basically a design decision. There is not an a priori right way of designing an architecture. When you define classes and relationships among them you define an architecture and, at the same time, a language representing the domain of your application.
As any languages it consists of a vocabulary (i.e. Person, President, Guard, etc.); a Syntax (i.e. the relationships you can specify for the instances of your vocabulary) and Semantics (i.e. the meaning of the terms you specify in vocabulary and relationships).
Now you can obviously obtain the same behaviour in possibly infinite way. And anyone would come up with a different architecture for the same system since anyone might have a different way of thinking at the problem.
Despite this there are some criteria you should take into account when designing.
When you define a Class you are defining a "first order" construct of your language, when you define attributes for a Class you are describing the characteristics of your first order constructs.
The best way to decide if you need a class or an attribute might be this.
Do Presidents and Guards have different characteristics apart of those they share since they are both person? If that is the case, and they have a number of different characteristics you should create two classes (one for the President and one for the Guard)both inheriting from Person. Otherwise you have to collapse all the characteristics (those belonging to person, those belonging to President and those belonging to Guard) in the Person class and condition their validity to another flag (type). This would be a very bad design
The characteristic of a Page of being public or not is instead something which actually describes the status of a page. It is therefore quite reasonable to model it as a Property of the Page Class
I am constanstly having problems with model design in MVC. Mostly all of my projects require some entities that are to be created, edited and deleted. Most of these entities have some common properties like creation date, modified date, author, modified by and in some cases even more descriptive properties are common. Because of that I have one single DB table to store them. For instance, Documents table and we store Invoices, Quotations and other business documents in it. I am using Entity Framework v4 for ORM, where we eventually end up with the Document entity.
How do I modify this entity or do I create a separate DocumentViewModel class for it to support multiple document types with common properties (so some form of inheritance or interface implementation should be implemented)? Besides identifying different document types I also need to have some types to have different Data Annotation rules (attributes).
For instance, Document table has PayDate column. Document type Invoice requires PayDate to be provided but document type Quotation does not.
This is the one single problem I am facing over and over with MVC and so far I've been handling it different every time but cannot decide how to properly handle it to achieve the maximum application maintainability and ease of development.
Have you considered making Documents entity abstract?
From the DB side, you will have Documents table containing just the fields shared by all Invoices/Quoations/etc. This field will have an IDENTITY PK - e.g DocId.
In the other tables, additional meta-data specific to that document can be stored, and the PK is a (non-IDENTITY) field DocId, which is also a FK to the Documents table.
On the EF side, Documents becomes an abstract entity, and the other entities inherit from this entity. This allows a nice OO paradigm to exist, and makes your code more robust.
We are currently using this scheme (EF4/SQL Server).
Your scenario sounds very similar to ours - consider using Abstract Classes.
EDIT
Thought i'd add a bit more info to how i've actually implemented this scenario, to put you on the right track.
As the comments to your Q state, we have little knowledge of your domain, therefore it's hard to make informed opinions. Personally, i chose to make my entity abstract, because certain functionality required a "mixed-bag" of items to be returned in one hit. There are other ways to do this of course (such as a stored procedure), but this allows a nice fluent interface between my UI (which is MVC by the way) and my service layer.
Works like this - here's how i get a single Post:
// var is strongly-typed to a "Post"
var somePost = repository.FindSingle(10);
Here's how i get a mixed-bag of Posts:
// var is strongly-typed to a "ICollection<Post>".
// "Title" is a property on my "Post" abstract POCO
var mixedBagOfPosts = repository.FindAll<Post>(p => p.Title = "Some Title");
Here's how i get a collection of "Reviews" (child of Post):
// var is strongly-typed to a "ICollection<Review>"
// "Rating" is a property on my "Review" POCO (derived from Post)
var reviews = repository.FindAll<Review>(r => r.Rating == 5.00);
The kicker is my repository is implemented with generics, and the type parameter ensures type-safety:
ICollection<T> FindAll<T>(Expression<Func<T,bool>> predicate) where T : Post
And it's implemented like this:
return myContext.Posts.OfType<T>.Where(predicate).ToList();
The OfType causes an inner join to the T (which is the child table), so only those records are returned.
Of course, i also have a service layer mediating between my UI and repository, but this should get you on the right track.
Also, you don't have to go with the whole Expression-predicate thing, i like this because it minimizes the number of methods on my interface, and gives full querying power to my controllers, whilst ensuring the queries are deferred to the point of the service layer, but not further.
If you don't like this, you could of course have regular parameters (string title, etc).
As i said, this architecture suited my domain requirements, so it may not necessarily suit yours, but hopefully it gives you some insight.
You can put a table in your EF model many times and just rename them to the entities you need. Just delete the columns you dont need from those.
For example, put in a Documents entity... now rename it to Invoice. Now add another one, and name it Quotation... on the Quotation, click on PayDate and hit the delete key. You can customize these all you want! You can do the same with other ORMs, just takes a little more work. With NHibernate you would manually create the Models, then map them to the same table, but only map what you need.