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.
Related
I understand the fact that generating a model based on the DataBaseFirst method woill produce a collection of entitites on the ORM that are essentially mapped to the DB tables.
It is my understanding, that if you need properties from other entities or just dropdownlist fields, you can make a ViewModel and use that class as your model.
I have an AppDev course that I just finished and the author wrote something that if I understand it correctly, he is referring to change the ORM entities to fit what your ViewModels would look like, hence, no need for ViewModels. However, if you do this, and regenerate the ORM from the database, those new entities that you placed as "ViewModels" would be gone. If you changed the ORM to update the database, then your database structure in SQL Server would be "undone".
Please inform me if my understanding is correct that I simply need to use a ViewModel in a separate folder to gather specific classes and or properties in a superclass or a single class with the properties that I just need and use that as my model....
Here is the excerpt from the author:
EntityFramework is initially a one to one mapping of classes to tables, but you can create a model that better represents the entities in your application no matter how the data is stored in relational tables.
What I think the author may have been hinting at is the concept of complex models. Let's say, for instance, that in your Database you have a Customer Table and an Address Table. A one to one mapping would create 2 model items, one Customer class and one Address class. Using complex model mapping, you could instead create a single Customer class which contained the columns from both the Customer Table and the Address table. Thus, instead of Customer.Address.Street1 you could refer simply to Customer.Street1. This is only one of many cases where you could represent a conceptual model in code differently than the resulting data in storage. Check out the excellent blog series Inheritance with EF CodeFirst for examples of different mapping strategies, like Table Per Hierarchy (TPH), Table Per Type (TPT), Table Per Concrete Class (TPC). Note that even though these examples are CodeFirst, they still apply to Entity Framework even if the initial models are generated from a Database.
In general, if you use DatabaseFirst and then never modify the resulting entities, you will always have a class in code for each table in the database. However, the power of Enity Framework is that it allows you to more efficiently work with your entities by allowing these hybrid mappings, thus freeing you to think about your code without the extra burden of your classes having to abide by rigid SQL expectations.
Edit
When the Database-First or Model-First entities are generated, they are purposely generated as partial classes. You can create your own partials which extend the classes that are generated from Entity Framework without modifying the existing class files. If the models are re-generated, your partial classes will still be intact. Granted, using partials means that you have the Entity Framework default behaviors as well as your extended behaviors, but this isn't usually a huge issue.
Another option is that you can modify the TT files which Entity Framework uses to generate your models, ensuring that your models are always regenerated in the same state.
Ultimately, the main idea is that just because the default behavior of Entity Framework is to map the database to classes 1:1, there are other options and you are never forced into something that isn't efficient for your project.
I am developing MVC application and using razor syntax. I have used model first method.
I have two entities, Customer and Lead. Lead is inherited from Customer.
When IsActive property is true then Customer treated as a Lead, otherwise it will be a customer.
Please check edmx file image.
Now, In regular entities we just deal with single entity and single table.
In this case how can I handle , Save and Load process. beacuse I have to store and load the record from 2 tables of DB.
Is Regular Index View will work here ?
When using inheritance in the Entity Framework you will have a single DbSet on your DbContext that exposes your hierarchy. In your database you have several options for configuring your table structure. For example you can use:
Table per Hierarchy
Table per Type
Table per Concrete type
(See this blog for a nice explanation: Inheritance in the Entity Framework.
In your queries however, you don't have to think about this. Your queries will have the following structure:
var leads = from l in dbcontext.Leads.OfType<Customer>()
select l;
The OfType() filters your collection to a subtype in your hierarchy. If you skip the OfType you will get both customers and leads in your resulting query.
I've read quite a few Q & As relating to logic in views within an MVC architecture and in most cases I agree that business logic shouldn't live in a view. However having said this, I constantly question my approach when using Microsoft's MVC Framework in conjunction with the Entity Framework because of the ease of accessibility to foreign key relationships a single entity can give me which ultimately results in me performing Linq to Entities queries inline within a View.
For example:
If I have the following two entities:
Product ([PK]ProductId, Title, Amount)
Image ([PK]ImageId, [FK]ProductId, ImageTitle, DisplayOrder)
Assuming I have a strongly typed Product view and I want to display the primary image (lowest display order) then I could do something like this in the view:
#{
Image image = (from l in Model.Image
orderby l.DisplayOrder
select l).FirstOrDefault();
}
This is a simple example for demonstration purposes, but surely this begins to bend the rules in relation to MVC architecture, but on the other hand doing this in the Controller and then (heaven forbid) jamming it into the ViewBag or ViewData would surely be just as much of a crime and become painful to manage for more than a few different related classes.
I used to create custom classes for complex Models, but it's time-consuming and ugly and I no longer see the point as the Entity Framework makes it quick and easy to define the View to be the primary Model (in this case a Product) and then easily retrieve all the peripheral components of the product using Linq queries.
I'd be interested to know how other people handle this type of scenario.
EDIT:
I also quite often do things like:
#foreach(Image i in Model.Image.OrderBy(e => e.DisplayOrder).ToList())
{
<img ... />
}
I'm going the 'custom classes for Models' way, and I agree it's time consuming and mundane, hence tools like http://automapper.codeplex.com/ have been created, to accompany you with this task.
Overall, I'm having similar feelings to yours. Reading some stuff saying it's good to have your domain model unrelated to your storage, then different class for your view model than the domain model, and then seeing that libraries actually seem to 'promote' the easy way (data annotations over your domain classes seem to be simplier than EF fluent interface etc etc).
At least we've got the choice I guess!
Model binding There is also issue that when you want to POST back the model data and store it in the database, you need to be careful and make sure MVC model binders bind all fields correctly. Else you may loose some data. With custom models for views, it might be simplier.
Validation
MVC gives you a way to validate using attributes, when you use viewmodels, you can freely pollute it with such annotations, because it's view specific (and validation should be view/controller action specific as well). When you use EF classes, you would be polluting those classes with unrelated (and possibly conflicting) logic.
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.
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.