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.
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.
A few weeks ago, I decided to learn Core Data for my new project and apply it to my entire model. There was a steep learning curve, but eventually I got familiar with the stack and I'm now rather comfortable with at least the basic concepts and the few common pitfalls such as thread concurrency.
I have to say, the first few weeks after getting comfortable where pretty amazing. NSFetchedResultsController give you a good way to communicate between my model and my controllers. However the more I use Core Data, the more annoying it gets.
As a concrete example, my app fetches a few pieces of data from my server (the posts) which appear in a feed. Each post has an owner, of class User, which I also fetch from the server. Now, Core Data has been great for managing the realtionship between a post and a user. The relationship is updated automatically and getting the post's origin is as simple as calling post.owner. However, there are also inconveniences:
1.Core Data forces objects to the disk that I do not want forced to the disk. This is probably the main issue. With the posts, I do not want them to be forced to disk, and would rather make calls to the server again. Why? Because the more posts I store persistently, the more housekeeping there is to do. A post can be edited, deleted, flagged, etc... and keeping those posts locally means having to plan updates.
2.Having to constantly worry about concurrency of contexts, objects and the likes. I wrote an object factory that always returns objects on the right thread and the right context, but even then bugs occur here and there, which quickly becomes frustrating.
3.Decreased performance. Perhaps the least important one at this point, going from cached objects to Core Data has taken a (barely noticeable) toll on the performance of my application (most notably the feed).
So what are your recommendations regarding Core Data? Would you suggest a different approach to Core Data?
I was thinking of a hybrid caching + Core Data where I store the information I will actually use many times (such as users) persistently and then use the RAM for things like posts, or simply creating posts without an NSManagedContext. Input welcome!
Core Data forces objects to the disk that I do not want forced to the disk.
It does no such thing. If you don't want to save your Post objects to the persistent store, don't put them in Core Data and don't make them managed objects. Your User object can have a posts property even if the Post object is not managed by Core Data. Managed objects can have properties of any type, not only to other managed objects.
Having to constantly worry about concurrency of contexts, objects and the likes.
Concurrency is complex no matter how you model your data. It's a fundamentally complex problem. You're encountering it with Core Data because you're using Core Data. If you use something else, you'll deal with it there.
Decreased performance.
"Product" menu --> "Analyze" and run Instruments to find out why. There's no reason this should happen, and you have the tools to discover what's actually going on.
At the moment i have one Persistent Store Coordinator which is backed up by a sql database. I have a lot of Entities in it. When i change the Model i try to use leightweight migration. If it failes i just delete everything and set it up again. For now this works fine. Now lets say i have to save some kinde of Bookmarks. Since you can have multiple bookmarks i think it is the best to save this also with core data. However in this case i need a real migration strategy so the user does not lose its bookmarks.
I'm thinking about creating a seperate persistent store coordinator which only contains the bookmark entity. With this one i could then do mirgations if necessary and the other perstitent store can be used as it is without migration.
Is this possible and recommended ? Or are there any pitfalls i have to watch out for. I hope i could explain my situation correctly. I was also thinking about saving the bookmarks with NSCoding but i'm not really sure which would be better in this case.
Any help is appreciated.
It is entirely possible. It's certainly a good idea to separate the static data that is just downloaded from the server (because it shouldn't be backed up) and the user created data (that should be).
Your main pitfalls are around ensuring that you keep the stores / contexts separate and that your code properly names things so it's obvious what you're working with.
If you have only a few bookmarks, they are small and they are usually all loaded at the same time then NSCoding is an ok option. If you have many, they are big or infrequently loaded then it isn't a great option.
Let's say I have a single model but I want to save objects to more than 1 NSPersistentStores. Assuming I use a single NSPersistentStoreCoordinator to manage those stores, what are the pros and cons of this setup?
With regard to the original question (multiple stores, one coordinator):
The potential advantage of two stores under one PSC is that you can spread out the data between two sqlite files (assuming that's the store type you're using). This can be helpful for example if you want to ship a pre-populated sqlite file with your app (which you can easily update in subsequent releases by shipping a new file), while still having user-created data next to it.
The disadvantage is that handling relationships across different stores is more cumbersome than within one store.
With regard to another answer to this question (multiple coordinators):
There certainly are potential benefits of using multiple coordinators with the same store, primarily performance related. Any request to the coordinator will lock it, so that everybody else has to wait to fetch data or save data. By using two coordinators you can push the lock down to the sqlite file, where it comes and goes much quicker.
Furthermore, a sqlite store that uses write-ahead-logging instead of a rollback journal enables multiple reader, single writer access to the store. By using two coordinators you can take advantage of sqlite's concurrency abilities. Apple is using this pattern internally too.
See also Apple's WWDC 2013 session on Core Data and iCloud (can't link because of ongoing dev-center outage...)
But keep in mind that all this is pretty esoteric and not necessary in almost all cases.
I have read tutorials and found different methods for saving your data such as pure SQL, Core Data, Archives and NSUserDefaults.
I am thinking about creating an Application that will be kind of an RPG where I will create a class with different variables.
This class and it state must be saved an persist through App cancellation, iPhone booting and App updating.
I. Which ones of the previous methods fullfill this?
Also I have a Q about Core Data.
If I just want to store a variable, lets say a date for instance, in an entity. Lets say that the property is called dateJustNow and it is an attribute.
II. Do I have to create new rows for each saving of dateJustNow? Or are there other ways to save only ONE state of an variable and fetch it when needed?
Maybe I am mixing variables (singles) and attributes (collections)?
Sincerely yours
The rule is:
Use NSUserDefaults to save application state information. This is information about the operation of the app itself e.g. last launch time, preferred font, last open view etc. The user defaults are universally accessible and fast but lightweight. They can store only bits and pieces of data and they don't store any logic.
Use Core Data to model, manage and persist the actual data and logic that the app deals with. Core Data manages large, complex data and its associated logic.
In the case of game, you would use NSUserDefaults to save data about the operation of the app e.g. the user can set a preference for which view the app will startup to. However, the actual logic and data that encodes the rules of the game and changes in the game state should go into Core Data.
To me, it sounds like you are looking for an OR-mapper. Use SQLite directly to save states. If you were to write a multi-player online RPG, Core Data would have been great for the large amounts of data.
From this answer:
Although Core Data is a descendant of Apple's Enterprise Object
Framework, an object-relational mapper (ORM) that was/is tightly tied
to a relational backend, Core Data is not an ORM. It is, in fact, an
object graph management framework.
Also, here's a very good read: http://inessential.com/2010/02/26/on_switching_away_from_core_data