I am learning a bit on NSCoreData and before introducing it some existing projects I have, I would like to validate my good understanding of the core principles.
From what I have understood, NSCoreData make it easier to manage local storage of object (+retrieval after that) by subclassing our Model class from NSManagedObject rather than from NSObject.
Right ?
I have a few questions then. Let's consider I am building a real estate application with as core model object the class Property that can represent an appartment, a house, and all related information. Currently it is managed in my app as a subclass of NSObject.
1) I retrieve the properties from the server through a search query, and have written a initWithJson : method to populate each instance.
Now if I subclass Property from NSManagedObject, I will create my instances by using
+(id)insertNewObjectForEntityForName:(NSString *)entityName
inManagedObjectContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)context
and I will be still be able to add a populateWithJson: to my class to fill in the properties.
Then I will create a lot of Property instances in the current managedObjectContext, and if I do a save, they will be stored at the physical layer.
If I call again the same webservice, and retrieve the same JSON content, I will recreate the identical managed objects.
How to avoid redundancy with the [managedObjectContext save:&error] call and not to store physically several time the representation of a single real life property ?
2) Let's say I want to store physically only some properties, for instance only the one the user want to have as favorites.
[managedObjectContext save:&error] will save all created / modified / deleted managed objects from the context to the physical layer, and not only the one I want.
How to achieve that ?
Am I supposed to declare another context (managedObjectContext2), move the instance I want to store in that context, and do the save in that one ?
(I mean, I will have a context just to manipulate the object, create instances from the JSON and represents them in UI ... and a second one to actually do the storage)
Or am I supposed to stores all the objects, and add a isFavorite BOOL property , and then fetching using a predicate on that property ?
3) The app has a common navigation pattern : the UITableView lists Properties instance with the minimum information required, and going on a detail view call a webservice to request more information on a specific Property instance (images, full text description).
Is it a good practice for instance to call the webservice only if the property.fullDescription is nil, and then update the object and store it locally with all detailed information, and the next time only to fetch it locally with a predicate on the property.id ?
What about object that might be updated server-side after they have been created?
Thanks for your lights
1) Retrieve the server data into a temporary form (array of dictionaries?), then for each possible property in the array, check to see if you already have an object in Core Data that matches. If you do, either ignore it or update any changed attributes; if not, create a Property object.
2) Decide which things you want to persist in order to support your app's functions. There's no point in creating a managed object for something you don't want to save. Note, though, that Core Data supports sub-classes if you want both Property and FavoriteProperty.
3) Entirely up to your "business rules"…. How often do you need local data to be updated? The only technical consideration might be the guideline to not keep large files locally that can be re-created on demand.
Related
I'm making a simple bank account tracker, for self-instructional purposes. I'm using Core Data to store three entities, related as in the screenshot:
WMMGTransaction objects are simply stored as they are recorded, and extracted as needed to feed tableviews and detail views. This will be done via NSFetchedResultsController and a predicate. I'm using MagicalRecord to access Core Data, if that matters.
My question is this:
When I pass WMMGAccount data from one VC to another, such as when creating a new account, or when selecting one from a list (via delegation as a rule), does it matter if I pass a reference to the entire entity, or can I just use an NSString bearing the .name of the account and identify the account when required with a predicate and an NSFetchedResultsController? I guess this is a strategy question, and may generate discussion, rather than having a cut and dried answer, but I'm wrestling with it, so I thought I'd ask.
It sounds like you're asking if you should pass an object to the code that needs it, or if you should pass information that could be used to look up the same object again.
Unless you need to use the managed object on a different thread or queue, you should always pass the actual object. No sense re-fetching an object you already have. It's extra work and code complexity that (unless there are some unusual extenuating details you didn't mention) won't help in any way.
If you are needing to use the object on a different queue or thread, passing information that can be used to look it up is the correct approach. But in that case-- don't pass the value of one of the properties. Use the managed object ID.
Core Data won't force name values to be unique, while the object's managedObjectID is unique. It's also faster when retrieving the object, because you can use objectForID: or existingObjectForID: instead of performing a fetch.
I have NSObject class name TrackInfo which contains tracks info like name , artist name,thumb image etc.
I use this class as downloading data and save information to that class after parsing data.
Now I have another tab in which, I have to show some data. This is same kind of data like trackInfo. But when app is in OFFLINE, I have to make NSManagedObject. It is same as trackinfo.
Can I use NSObject class instead of NSManagedObject or Vice-Versa ?
What I basically wants to do is, I have to display track info from one class either Trackinfo (NSObject class) or NSManagedObjectClass which is used to save data when app is in offline.
Short answer is yes, you can. How? You can find a useful discussion Organising Core Data for iOS.
The long answer can be grabbed within the documentation.
NSManagedObject is a generic class that implements all the basic
behavior required of a Core Data model object. It is not possible to
use instances of direct subclasses of NSObject (or any other class not
inheriting from NSManagedObject) with a managed object context. You
may create custom subclasses of NSManagedObject, although this is not
always required. If no custom logic is needed, a complete object graph
can be formed with NSManagedObject instances.
A managed object is associated with an entity description (an instance
of NSEntityDescription) that provides metadata about the object
(including the name of the entity that the object represents and the
names of its attributes and relationships) and with a managed object
context that tracks changes to the object graph. It is important that
a managed object is properly configured for use with Core Data. If you
instantiate a managed object directly, you must call the designated
initializer (initWithEntity:insertIntoManagedObjectContext:).
About your question, it depends on what you need to achieve. If your goal is to perform a sync mechanism between your device and the server, you should set up 1) a model with a TrackInfo entity 2) a Core Data stack that relies on a persistent store like SQLite. Then you should modify TrackInfo to take into account modifications to that entity. For example, a dirty flag property (0 or 1) or a timestamp. When you do a modification on your TrackInfo you update that property. When the connection is restored you need to query against that property and sync with the server. If you choose the timestamp, the server should say what is the latest timestamp to query against.
My question is how to implement this correctly and with good design.
I would use Core Data for this.
Problem description:
Let's suppose that we have two object types (classes) in the system, Location and Event. They are retrieved from webservice, and there is no need to persist it.
Any of these two kind of objects can be added (saved) to favorites and it should be persisted locally.
Additional requirements:
show and manage favorites - let say in FavoritesViewController (I would use here NSFetchedResultController)
display (cell) of favorites is different, according to favorite type (location or event)
in Location/Event details view controller, there will be an action to add/remove to/from favorites, and the state of that action should be set according to favorites existance
in the future, it can be another object type which can be added to favorites (for example, Drink).
I have a dilemma about the best way to implement this. Should I store locations and events directly as separate entities (model objects), and somehow retrieve it in a single fetch, in order to get and manage the list of favorites. Or, maybe use an interface/protocol (for example Favorable), and create and store Favorite objects, and each object which can be added to favorite should implement favorable and will be converted to Favorite object, but in this case, it will limit favorites to only attributes that Favorite object exposes.
You should make a simple Core Data model with the two entities. It is very straight forward. Your table view would have two type of cells (with different identifiers) that display the data as needed.
You can use these to entities (subclasses of NSManagedObject) throughout your app. You should perhaps persist them anyway (so they are available if the internet goes down and allow the user to continue working with them). The favourite instances can be marked with a BOOL property.
One design consideration, though: maybe you want to create an optional relationship between Location and Event. Some events might be tied to a particular location and you will need this info as well. With Core Data this is really easy to do.
I am using CoreData in my app and i have a set of "Card" entities. A player can have more than one of the same card in his deck (it is still the same card pulled from the database but added two times to an array).
My problem occurs when I want to modify an aspect of one of the duplicate cards. They are all subclassed NSManagedObjects which have some custom properties on them (which are not saved onto the database). For example when I set one of the custom properties on one card in the array it is also changed in the other same card in the array because the entityForName:inManagedObjectContext: returns the same object and does not load a new one.
Basically what I need is that each time entityForName:inManagedObjectContext: is called I get a new instance of the same entity so that when I modify a custom property in one it is not also modified in the other. I have already tried using [entity copy] if the entity has already been created but it does not work.
Thank you in advance for your help!
Core Data is a persistent store, not a database. So it's reason detre is ensuring that you get exactly the same object out, no matter how many times you ask for it. Those aren't snapshots from the database as they might be if you wrote some custom SQL code, those are the actual live objects.
With that in mind, what you need to do is either configure your Core Data schema to match your logical schema — I guess you'd have, say, CardInstance, with a one-to-many relationship with Card, and you'd create CardInstances for when you pulled a card from the deck — or write some code to read from a fetched Card into a snapshot object, exactly as if you were working manually with SQL or whatever.
When getting an object from the DB, should the object's properties also be loaded? There seems to be these approaches.
Create well-formed, fully-loaded objects.
Pro: No need to check if a property has been loaded; it has. Pass it around and don’t worry about parts of the object not being there.
Con: Where do you stop? If an object has an object, and that object has an object, and that object has 40 objects as properties, etc… Do you load the whole DB? Or do you make a decision in the BLL as to what constitutes a well-formed object, and load those properties?
Don’t load any properties that are other objects.
Pro: Quick, no loading unnecessary properties.
Con: Code has to be constantly written to check if properties are populated.
Lazy-loading: only load properties when they are first used.
Pro/Con: Not sure what to say about this approach. It seems intuitively wrong.
Is there another approach? What approach is the best?
And finally, what about properties that can be null? For example, a car may not have a PreviousOwner object. Do you set it to null? An empty PreviousOwner object? Does that property belong in another class then?
There's no easy answer to your question because it depends on what you're trying to achieve.
It looks like you expect a more or less complete object graph to be loaded from the database (i.e. with relationships between multiple object types and the objects themselves stored in the database).
If this is the case, I would look into using the Object Relationship Mapper that's convenient in my language of choice.
As to how much of the object graph is being loaded, the model employed by Apple CoreData's system is objects not yet retrieved are marked as faulty (they call the concept "faulting" - it's described in Limiting the Size of the Object Graph: Faulting. This is a play on the lazy loading concept you described yourself.