I am trying to understand the best way to work with complex hierarchies of objects that i manipulate based on data on forms in Grails.
I cannot use the command object as my form is dynamic (users can add any number of records). I am told we should parse the params in controller and let services do the transaction activities on the domain objects and thus reduce coupling. Sometimes this doesn't seem straightforward.
I have a few lists of child domain objects in a base domain object that is being 'updated' which means the list could have grown or reduced, meaning some domain tuples will need to be added/removed, how do i pass that information from controller to service without making a function with 8 parameters? If anyone has any strategies you've used, please share. I am sure this is not uncommon but I haven't seen any discussions on such a question.
e.g.
class DomainA {
List<DomainB> bList
List<DomainC> cList
DomainD domD
}
class DomainD {
List<DomainE> elist
}
How about relying on ajax. You might save classD and then class A, or use a command object to save both. Then with the Id´s of these two classes you might add everything else you need using ajax.
Related
I'm new to the whole ASP world and I'm getting my feet wet by building a C# MVC3/EF4 project. I'm finding it hard to keep from duplicating a bunch of code in my models and view models. Consider an object Foo. I need to do the following things with Foo:
Store records of type Foo in my database.
Allow users to lookup records of an individual Foo (pass instances of Foo to a view).
Allow users to create new instances of Foo (pass instances of Foo to a form).
Let's say I also have a type Bar. A Bar contains a list of Foos. There are two requirements here:
Users can view a list of Bars.
When the user clicks on a specific Bar, it shows all of its Foos.
So, a sketch of my basic objects look like this:
class Foo
{
string FooName;
int Id;
}
class Bar
{
List<Foo> FooList;
int Id;
string Baz;
}
But when I start thinking about the different views, it begins to get messy:
The views shouldn't have any write access to any of the data members.
There's one view that takes a list of Bars but doesn't care about Bar.FooList. Let's say I also want to be good about resource management and close the DbContext as soon as possible (i.e. after the object is in memory but before I render the view). If I just pass it a list of Bars and the designer tries to access the FooList by mistake, we'll get a runtime error. Yuck!
Ok fine, I just create a distinct ViewModel for each view that has read only datamembers, no problem.
But both the database model and the form models will need to have DataAnnotations attached which say which fields are required, max length of the strings, etc. If I create separate form models and database models then I end up having to duplicate all these annotations. Yuck!
So, that's my architectural dilemma: I want to have succinct view models which restrict the views only to reading the data they are supposed to access. I want to avoid repeating data annotations all over the place. And I want to be able to aggressively free my DB resources as soon as possible. What's the best way to achieve my goals?
My advice is do NOT use data annotations in your EF entity classes. Instead, try out the fluent API. It keeps persistence concerns out of the model classes themselves. You can even define the modelbuilder stuff in an entirely different library.
As for having duplicate properties, properties are cheap:
public string MyProp { get; set; }
Not a lot of code, and you may begin to see, the viewmodels and entities need not always be exact duplicates of each other. For example, what if you want to apply [HiddenInput] to a viewmodel, to get it to render as <input type="hidden" />? Would you apply that to the entity? Why? It belongs in the viewmodel (the namespace is even System.Web.Mvc, not System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations).
As far as duplicating error messages during validation (if you validate the MVC and EF layers separately), you can use resx resources.
As far as freeing db resources, let EF manage that. I find it's best to keep a single DbContext instance per HttpContext. You can open it up using a factory, an OnActionExecuting action filter, Application_BeginRequest, with an IoC container, or whatever. Then dispose context during OnResultExecued, Application_EndRequest, etc. Keeps things simple.
This is possibly a bit of a stupid question, but I am getting confused due to the ASP.NET MVC book I am currently reading...
Working with Linq-To-SQL it seems to say that it is not good practice to pass the Linq-to-SQL objects straight to the controller, but that each object should be modelled separately first and this should be passed between the controller and the repository.
Say, I have a database of products. Linq-to-SQl creates a product class for me with Name, Price and Whatnotelse properties. I could pass that straight from repository to controller and then view, but instead it seems to recommend that I use and third class, say Product_Entity, with also Name, Price etc. properties and pass that to the controller.
I fail to see the benefit of this approach, except possibly for adding attributes to the properties... But apart from that it seems to have more drawbacks than benefits. Say each product has manufacturer information as well, I don't see how I can model that easily in my third class.
Is this approach really best practice? Or did I misunderstand all that? If so, why is it bad to work straight off the linq-to-sql generated objects? And how do you deal with relationships between objects in y
The huge benefit to this other class you create is that, to use your example, it doesn't necessarily map to either a product or a manufacturer. Think about it like this:
Your Linq to SQL classes are meant for talking in the "data" domain.
Your "data" classes (the ones you're having trouble with) are meant for talking in the "application" domain.
Let's take an example. Suppose in your MVC application you wanted to show a grid of information about products. You want to see their Name, Price (from the Product table) and their Country of Manufacture and Manufacturer name (from the Manufacturer table). What would you name this class? Product_Manufacturer? What if later on you wanted to add properties from yet a third table such as product discounts? Instead of thinking about these objects in purely the data domain, think about them with regard to your application.
So instead of Product_Manufacturer, what about calling it ProductSummaryItem? Each property of the ProductSummaryItem class would map 1:1 with a field shown in your grid on the UI. Your controller would perform the mapping between the information in the data domain (Product, Manufacturer) with the custom class you'd created in the application domain (ProductSummaryItem).
By doing this, you get some awesome benefits:
1) Writing your views becomes really, really simple. All you have to do to display your data is loop through the ProductSummaryItems and wrap them in and tags, and you're done. It also allows for simple aggregation. Say for example you wanted to add a field called ProductsSoldLastYear to your ProductSummaryItem class. You could do that very simply in your views because all it is to them is another property.
2) Since the view is trivial and there's mapping logic in the controller, it becomes much easier to test the controller's output because it's customized to what the view is going to see.
3) Since the ProductSummaryItem class only has the data it needs, your queries can potentially become much faster because they only need to query for the fields that would populate your ProductSummaryItem object, and nothing else. This overhead can become overbearing the more data-domain objects make up your ProductSummaryItem object.
This pattern is called Model View ViewModel (MVVM) and is hugely popular with MVC as well as in frameworks like WPF.
The argument against MVVM is that you have to somewhat reimplement simple classes for CRUD operations. Fair enough, I guess, but you can use a tool like automapper to help out with things like that. I think you'll find fairly quickly, though, that using the MVVM pattern even for CRUD pays dividends, because before you know it, even with simple classes, you'll start wishing you had extra fields which can easily drive your views.
I'm trying to clean up my action methods in an ASP.NET MVC project by making use of view models. Currently, my view models contain entities that might have relationships with other entities. For example, ContactViewModel class might have a Contact, which might have an Address, both of which are separate entities. To query for a list of Contact objects, I might do something like the following.
IList<Contact> contacts;
using (IContactRepository repository = new ContactRepository())
{
contacts = repository.Fetch().ToList();
}
EditContactViewModel vm = new EditContactViewModel(contacts);
return View(vm);
This method brings on a few problems. For example, the repository is queried within a using statement. By the time the view renders, the context has gone out of scope, making it impossible for the view to query the Address associated with the Contact. I could enable eager loading, but I'd rather not. Furthermore, I don't like that the entity model has bled over into my view (I feel like it's a bad idea for my View to have knowledge of the relationship between Contact and Address, but feel free to disagree with me).
I have considered creating a fattened class that contains properties from both the Contact and Address entities. I could then project the Contact and Address entities into my new, flattened object. One of my concerns with this approach is that my action methods may get a little busy and I don't think AutoMapper is able to map two or more objects into a single type.
What technique is/are preferred for overcoming my concerns?
Automapper will work for your case. What you have is an object graph, a thing has some more things, which Automapper handles fine.
Taking these concerns in order...
First, if you are worried about the using statement and the repository (I don't know if it is LINQ-to-SQL or LINQ-to-Entities, but it doesn't matter), what I would recommend you do is implement IDisposable on your Controller, and then store the repository in a field either on the model or in the controller or somewhere where you have access to it in the view (if you need it, if the model has knowledge of it while the object is "alive" then you just need to keep it around for the life of the controller).
Then, when the request is complete, the Dispose method on your controller is called and you can dispose of the repository there.
Personally, I have a method on my base controller class which looks like this:
protected T AddDisposable<T>(T disposable) where T : class, IDisposable
{
// Error checking.
if (disposable == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("disposable");
// Add to list
...
}
Basically, it allows you to store the IDisposable implementations, then in the IDisposable implementation of the controller, it iterates through the list, disposing of everything.
Regarding the exposure of the address on the entity model, I don't see this as a bleed issue, personally. The address is part of the composition of the contact (IMO), so it would be wrong to not have it there.
However, I don't disagree if you don't want it there because you want to focus on one type in one controller at a time, etc, etc.
To that end, you would want to create Data Transfer Objects which basically map between the type you expose in the view model and your entity model.
Let's start with this basic scenario:
I have a bunch of Tables that are essentially rarely changed Enums (e.g. GeoLocations, Category, etc.) I want to load these into my EF ObjectContext so that I can assign them to entities that reference them as FK. These objects are also used to populate all sorts of dropdown controls. Pretty standard scenarios so far.
Since a new controller is created for each page request in MVC, a new entity context is created and these "enum" objects are loaded repeatedly. I thought about using a static context object across all instances of controllers (or repository object).
But will this require too much locking and therefore actually worsen perf?
Alternatively, I'm thinking of using a static context only for read-only tables. But since entities that reference them must be in the same context anyway, this isn't any different from the above.
I also don't want to get into the business of attaching/detaching these enum objects. Since I believe once I attach a static enum object to an entity, I can't attach it again to another entity??
Please help, I'm quite new to EF + MVC, so am wondering what is the best approach.
Personally, I never have any static Context stuff, etc. For me, when i call the database (CRUD) I use that context for that single transaction/unit of work.
So in this case, what you're suggesting is that you wish to retrieve some data from the databse .. and this data is .. more or less .. read only and doesn't change / static.
Lookup data is a great example of this.
So your Categories never change. Your GeoLocations never change, also.
I would not worry about this concept on the database/persistence level, but on the application level. So, just forget that this data is static/readonly etc.. and just get it. Then, when you're in your application (ie. ASP.NET web MVC controller method or in the global.asax code) THEN you should cache this ... on the UI layer.
If you're doing a nice n-tiered MVC app, which contains
UI layer
Services / Business Logic Layer
Persistence / Database data layer
Then I would cache this in the Middle Tier .. which is called by the UI Layer (ie. the MVC Controller Action .. eg. public void Index())
I think it's important to know how to seperate your concerns .. and the database stuff is should just be that -> CRUD'ish stuff and some unique stored procs when required. Don't worry about caching data, etc. Keep this layer as light as possible and as simple as possible.
Then, your middle Tier (if it exists) or your top tier should worry about what to do with this data -> in this case, cache it because it's very static.
I've implemented something similar using Linq2SQL by retrieving these 'lookup tables' as lists on app startup and storing them in ASP's caching mechanism. By using the ASP cache, I don't have to worry about threading/locking etc. Not sure why you'd need to attach them to a context, something like that could easily be retrieved if necessary via the table PK id.
I believe this is as much a question of what to cache as how. When your are dealing with EF, you can quickly run into problems when you try to persist EF objects across different contexts and attempt to detach/attach those objects. If you are using your own POCO objects with custom t4 templates then this isn't an issue, but if you are using vanilla EF then you will want to create POCO objects for your cache.
For most simple lookup items (i.e numeric primary key and string text description), you can use Dictionary. If you have multiple fields you need to pass and back with the UI then you can build a more complete object model. Since these will be POCO objects they can then be persisted pretty much anywhere and any way you like. I recommend using caching logic outside of your MVC application such that you can easily mock the caching activity for testing. If you have multiple lists you need to cache, you can put them all in one container class that looks something like this:
public class MyCacheContainer
{
public Dictionary<int, string> GeoLocations { get; set; }
public List<Category> Categories { get; set; }
}
The next question is do you really need these objects in your entity model at all. Chances are all you really need are the primary keys (i.e. you create a dropdown list using the keys and values from the dictionary and just post the ID). Therefore you could potentially handle all of the lookups to the textual description in the construction of your view models. That could look something like this:
MyEntityObject item = Context.MyEntityObjects.FirstOrDefault(i => i.Id == id);
MyCacheContainer cache = CacheFactory.GetCache();
MyViewModel model = new MyViewModel { Item = item, GeoLocationDescription = GeoLocations[item.GeoLocationId] };
If you absolutely must have those objects in your context (i.e. if there are referential entities that tie 2 or more other tables together), you can pass that cache container into your data access layer so it can do the proper lookups.
As for assigning "valid" entities, in .Net 4 you can just set the foreign key properties and don't have to actually attach an object (technically you can do this in 3.5, but it requires magic strings to set the keys). If you are using 3.5, you might just try something like this:
myItem.Category = Context.Categories.FirstOrDefault(c => c.id == id);
While this isn't the most elegant solution and does require an extra roundtrip to the DB to get a category you don't really need, it works. Doing a single record lookup based on a primary key should not really be that big of a hit especially if the table is small like the type of lookup data you are talking about.
If you are stuck with 3.5 and don't want to make that extra round trip and you want to go the magic string route, just make sure you use some type of static resource and/or code generator for your magic strings so you don't fat finger them. There are many examples here that show how do assign a new EntityKey to a reference without going to the DB so I won't go into that on this question.
At the moment, i got quite badly fashioned view model.
Classes looks like this=>
public class AccountActionsForm
{
public Reader Reader { get; set; }
//something...
}
Problem is that Reader type comes from domain model (violation of SRP).
Basically, i'm looking for design tips (i.e. is it a good idea to split view model to inputs/outputs?) how to make my view model friction-less and developer friendly (i.e. - mapping should work automatically using controller base class)?
I'm aware of AutoMapper framework and i'm likely going to use it.
So, once more - what are common gotchas when trying to create proper view model? How to structure it? How mapping is done when there's a multiple domain object input necessary?
I'm confused about cases when view needs data from more than 1 aggregate root. I'm creating app which has entities like Library, Reader, BibliographicRecord etc.
In my case - at domain level, it makes no sense to group all those 3 types into LibraryReaderThatHasOrderedSomeBooks or whatnot, but view that should display list about ordered books for specific reader in specific library needs them all.
So - it seems fine to create view OrderedBooksList with OrderedBooksListModel view model underneath that holds LibraryOutput, ReaderOutput and BibliographicRecordOutput view models. Or even better - OrderedBooksListModel view model, that leverages flattening technique and has props like ReaderFirstName, LibraryName etc.
But that leads to mapping problems because there are more than one input.
It's not 1:1 relation anymore where i kick in one aggregate root only.
Does that mean my domain model is kind a wrong?
And what about view model fields that live purely on UI layer (i.e. enum that indicates checked tab)?
Is this what everyone does in such a cases?
FooBarViewData fbvd = new FooBarViewData();
fbvd.Foo = new Foo(){ A = "aaa"};
fbvd.Bar = new Bar(){ B = "bbb"};
return View(fbvd);
I'm not willing to do this=>
var fbvd = new FooBarViewData();
fbvd.FooOutput = _mapper.Map<Foo,FooOutput>(new Foo(){ A = "aaa"});
fbvd.BarOutput = _mapper.Map<Bar,BarOutput>(new Bar(){ B = "bbb"});
return View(fbvd);
Seems like a lot of writing. :)
Reading this at the moment. And this.
Ok. I thought about this issue a lot and yeah - adding another abstraction layer seems like a solution =>
So - in my mind this already works, now it's time for some toying.
ty Jimmy
It's tough to define all these, but here goes. We like to separate out what we call what the View sees from what the Controller builds. The View sees a flattened, brain-dead DTO-like object. We call this a View Model.
On the Controller side, we build up a rich graph of what's needed to build the View Model. This could be just a single aggregate root, or it could be a composition of several aggregate roots. All of these together combine into what we call the Presentation Model. Sometimes the Presentation Model is just our Persistence (Domain) Model, but sometimes it's a new object altogether. However, what we've found in practice is that if we need to build a composite Presentation Model, it tends to become a magnet for related behavior.
In your example, I'd create a ViewFooBarModel, and a ViewFooBarViewModel (or ViewFooBarModelDto). I can then talk about ViewFooBarModel in my controller, and then rely on mapping to flatten out what I need from this intermediate model with AutoMapper.
Here's one item that dawned on us after we had been struggling with alternatives for a long time: rendering data is different from receiving data.
We use ViewModels to render data, but it quickly turned out that when it came to receiving data through forms posting and similar, we couldn't really make our ViewModels fit the concept of ModelBinding. The main reason is that the round-trip to the browser often involves loss of data.
As an example, even though we use ViewModels, they are based on data from real Domain Objects, but they may not expose all data from a Domain Object. This means that we may not be able to immediately reconstruct an underlying Domain Object from the data posted by the browser.
Instead, we need to use mappers and repositories to retrieve full Domain Objects from the posted data.
Before we realized this, we struggled much with trying to implement custom ModelBinders that could reconstruct a full Domain Object or ViewModel from the posted data, but now we have separate PostModels that model how we receive data.
We use abstract mappers and services to map a PostModel to a Domain Object - and then perhaps back to a ViewModel, if necessary.
While it may not make sense to group unrelated Entities (or rather their Repositories) into a Domain Object or Service, it may make a lot of sense to group them in the Presentation layer.
Just as we build custom ViewModels that represents Domain data in a way particularly suited to a specific application, we also use custom Presentation layer services that combine things as needed. These services are a lot more ad-hoc because they only exist to support a given view.
Often, we will hide this service behind an interface so that the concrete implementation is free to use whichever unrelated injected Domain objects it needs to compose the desired result.