A week back, I had an ASP.NET MVC application that called on a logical POCO service layer to perform business logic against entities. One approach I commonly used was to use AutoMapper to map a populated viewmodel to an entity and call update on the entity (pseudo code below).
MyEntity myEntity = myService.GetEntity(param);
Mapper.CreateMap<MyEntityVM, MyEntity>();
Mapper.Map(myEntityVM, myEntity);
this.myService.UpdateEntity(myEntity);
The update call would take an instance of the entity and, through a repository, call NHibernate's Update method on the entity.
Well, I recently changed my logical service layer into WCF Web Services. I've noticed that the link NHibernate makes with an entity is now lost when the entity is sent from the service layer to my application. When I try to operate against the entity in the update method, things are in NHibernate's session that shouldn't be and vice-versa - it fails complaining about nulls on child identifiers and such.
So my question...
What can I do to efficiently take input from my populated viewmodel and ultimately end up modifying the object through NHibernate?
Is there a quick fix that I can apply with NHibernate?
Should I take a different approach in conveying the changes from the application to the service layer?
EDIT:
The best approach I can think of right now, is to create a new entity and map from the view model to the new entity (including the identifier). I would pass that to the service layer where it would retrieve the entity using the repository, map the changes using AutoMapper, and call the repository's update method. I will be mapping twice, but it might work (although I'll have to exclude a bunch of properties/children in the second mapping).
No quick fix. You've run into the change tracking over the wire issue. AFAIK NHibernate has no native way to handle this.
These may help:
https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=989106
http://lunaverse.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/remoting-using-wcf-and-nhibernate/
In a nutshell your two options are to adjust your service to send state change information over the Nhibernate can read or load the objects, apply the changes and then save in your service layer.
Don't be afraid of doing a select before an update inside your service. This is good practice anyway to prevent concurrency issues.
I don't know if this is the best approach, but I wanted to pass along information on a quick fix with NHibernate.
From NHibernate.xml...
<member name="M:NHibernate.ISession.SaveOrUpdateCopy(System.Object)">
<summary>
Copy the state of the given object onto the persistent object with the same
identifier. If there is no persistent instance currently associated with
the session, it will be loaded. Return the persistent instance. If the
given instance is unsaved or does not exist in the database, save it and
return it as a newly persistent instance. Otherwise, the given instance
does not become associated with the session.
</summary>
<param name="obj">a transient instance with state to be copied</param>
<returns>an updated persistent instance</returns>
</member>
It's working although I haven't had time to examine the database calls to see if it's doing exactly what I expect it to do.
Related
I am reading a book on ASP.NET MVC, where the author has mentioned that due to the stateless nature of ASP.NET MVC some of the features in Entity Framework are disabled.
With that in mind, it is best to abstract the data access layer. The Repository pattern is one of the most used patterns for managing data abstraction.
I am curious to know, what are the features of EF will be disabled, if Repository pattern is not used for data abstraction.
I am reading the same Exam 70-486 book.
Entity Framework can't have the DbContextObject (the old ObjectContext) object live for the whole user session, this means that Entity Framework can't track changes to the entity object in a web application.
The solution is to create a new DbContextObject object each time we need to make some operations against a database.
However, this solution is causing one problem, when we need to delete or update a record with the new instance of DbContextObject. One first solution is to retrieve first the object that you are trying to modify, and only then do the necessary changes. Another solution would be to mark the entity state as modified (
context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;) without the need to retrieve the entity first
In particular, entity tracking is not very useful, because you have new object instance on each request. Workaround for update is:
var entity = new Entity();
entity.Id = id;
content.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
context.SaveChanges();
I've been learning the ASP.NET MVC framework using the Apress book "Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework" by Steven Sanderson. To that end I have been trying out a few things on a project that I am not that familar with but are things that I thing I should be doing, namely:
Using repository pattern to access my database and populate my domain/business objects.
Use an interface for the repository so it can be mocked in a test project.
Use inversion of control to create my controllers
I have an MVC web app, domain library, test library.
In my database my domain items have an Id represented as an int identity column. In my domain classes the setter is internal so only the repository can set it.
So my quandries/problems are:
Effectively all classes in the domain library can set the Id property, not good for OOP as they should be read-only.
In my test library I create a fake repository. However since it's a different assembly I can't set the Id properties on classes.
What do others do when using a database data store? I imagine that many use an integer Id as unique identifier in the database and would then need to set it the object but not by anything else.
Can't you set your objects' IDs during construction and make them read-only, rather than setting IDs through a setter method?
Or do you need to set the ID at other times. If that's the case, could you explain why?
EDIT:
Would it be possible to divorce the ID and the domain object? Does anything other than the repository need to know the ID?
Remove the ID field from your domain object, and have your repository implementations track object IDs using a private Dictionary. That way anyone can create instances of your domain objects, but they can't do silly things with the IDs.
That way, the IDs of the domain objects are whatever the repository implementation decides they are - they could be ints from a database, urls, or file names.
If someone creates a new domain object outside of the repository and say, tried to save it to your repository, you can look up the ID of the object and save it as appropriate. If the ID isn't there, you can either throw an exception to say you need to create the object using a repository method, or create a new ID for it.
Is there anything that would stop you from using this pattern?
you can use the InternalsVisibleTo attribute. It will allow the types from an assembly to be visible from the tests (provided they are in different assemblies).
Otherwise you can leave the property read-only for the external objects but in the same time have a constructor which has an ID parameter and sets the ID property. Then you can call that constructor.
Hope this helps.
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.
When creating a new entity object that has a foreign key value I need to create a new Entity key (Entity Framework in .net 3.5) for the object, but I'm having trouble deciding where in my application I should do this.
Right now when I create a new record with a foreign key, I create the entity key in the controller (in this case a user ID pulled from a membership provider), assign it to the object and pass it to the repository service layer.
Are there any problems with this, or should I be passing the object plus the user ID to the repository service layer and have it deal with the entity key creation? Passing one object seems cleaner, but having multiple controllers assigning keys this way makes me nervous. Thanks.
I think this is a matter of separation of concerns. A repository is concerned with retrieving and adding/changing/removing entities. It shouldn't be responsible for building entities. Conversely, the controller really shouldn't be responsible for building entities either (a controller should to the bare-bones amount of work required to push data to a view, and handle commands from a view delegate those commands to business logic...business logic belongs elsewhere (like a domain).) In all honesty, you should create an EntityBuilder of some sort to handle the process of creating entities. You would pass the object plus user ID to a builder, which would then provide you with a fully built entity that could then be passed on to a repository.
EDIT:
Even with your change from 'Repository' to 'Service Layer', the principal remains the same. Delegate the process of building your entity to a dedicated builder, and maintain your separation of concerns.
This is a little out there but I have a customer object coming back to my controller. I want to just reconnect this object back to the database, is it even possible? I know there is a datacontext.customers.insertonsubmit(customer), but is there the equivalent datacontext.customers.updateonsubmit(customer)???
This is what I don't like about LINQ-to-SQL.
It generally works fine if you're querying and updating in the same scope, but if you get an object, cache it, and then try to update it later, you can't.
Here's what the documentation says:
Use the Attach methods with entities that have been created in one DataContext, and serialized to a client, and then deserialized back with the intention to perform an update or delete operation. Because the new DataContext has no way of tracking what the original values were for a disconnected entity, the client is responsible for supplying those values. In this version of Attach, the entity is assumed to be in its original value state. After calling this method, you can then update its fields, for example with additional data sent from the client.
Do not try to Attach an entity that has not been detached through serialization. Entities that have not been serialized still maintain associations with deferred loaders that can cause unexpected results if the entity becomes tracked by a second data context.
A little ambiguous IMHO, specifically about exactly what it means by "serialized" and "deserialized".
Also, interestingly enough, here's what it says about the DataContext object:
In general, a DataContext instance is
designed to last for one "unit of
work" however your application defines
that term. A DataContext is
lightweight and is not expensive to
create. A typical LINQ to SQL
application creates DataContext
instances at method scope or as a
member of short-lived classes that
represent a logical set of related
database operations.
So, DataContexts are intended to be tightly scoped - and yet to use Attach(), you have to use the same DataContext that queried the object. I'm assuming/hoping we're all completely misunderstanding what Attach() is really intended to be used for.
What I've had to do in situations like this is re-query the object I needed to update to get a fresh copy, and then do the update.
The customer that you post from the form will not have entity keys so may not attach well, also you may not have every field of the customer available on the form so all of it's fields may not be set.
I would recommend using the TryUpdateModel method, in your action you'll have to get the customer from the database again and update it with the form's post variables.
public ActionResult MySaveAction(int id, FormCollection form)
{
Customer updateCustomer = _Repository.GetCustomer(id);
TryUpdateModel(updateCustomer, "Customer", form);
_Repository.Save(updateCustomer);
}
You will have to add in all your own exception handling and validation of course, but that's the general idea.
You want to use the attach method on the customers table on the data context.
datacontext.customers.Attach(customer);
to reconnect it to the data context. Then you can use SubmitChanges() to update the values in the database.
EDIT: This only works with entities that have been detached from the original data context through serialization. If you don't mind the extra call to the database, you can use the idiomatic method in ASP.NET MVC of retrieving the object again and applying your changes via UpdateModel or TryUpdateModel as #Odd suggests.