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.
Related
Apple describes faults as partially materialised futures which is very similar to the term partially materialised views used in several databases. Word partial means for me that some field of this object are initialised (realised) and some not. But Apple describes faults as:
A managed object fault is an instance of the appropriate class, but its persistent variables are not yet initialized.
Are there any way to partially realise a fault? E.g. I have object with 10 field and I want a partial object with only two fields realised while the whole object is still a fault (hence all other fields are still nil). I'm not talking about propertiesToFetch of NSFetchRequest here but about so called partial faults.
Because currently when fault is fired all properties are realised. Here is a quote from the docs:
If you access a property on the Department object — its name, for example — the fault fires and Core Data executes a fetch for you to retrieve all of the object's attributes
How can I customise fault realisation?
I don't believe that there is anyway to do this. When core data loads a managedObject it loads everything. You can see in NSMangedObject's interface that it has a single property of isFault which is either true of false.
If you have a property that is very large (a blob of data for example) and don't want to load it unless it is needed, then I would suggest storing it as a separate entity with a relationship. This way it will only be loaded (faulted) when you request the property.
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.
(Data models renamed to preserve anonymity. :D )
So, I have a situation where on a Thing, whose configuration is defined by its own special object, though that object can be one of 2 class types.
I would like to be able to do Fetch Requests on this model by asking if the Thing's Configuration is of a certain known subclass, and if so, does it have a few specific flags set in its bitmask. If this is true, I define this as being "not special". Therefore, if it also has the other type of subclass as it's Configuration, it is also "not special".
My questions are these:
Have I got my syntax right? (In my app I get faults)
Why does it want to return an NSArray? (I thought its traversing a to-one relationship on a single object. How would I therefore interpret this NSArray?)
I should add that I only know Core Data via MagicalRecord more or less. And I use mogenerator too.
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.
I am new to db4o.
I have this question in mind:
when the object are retrieved from DAL, maybe it will update in Business layer, then we lost it's original property, so when it comes to updating how can I find which one is the original object in the database to update?
You need to be more precise about "the object". If you modify the object instance's properties, simply storing it again will perform an update:
MyClass someInstance = ObjectContainer.Query<MyClass>().FirstOrDefault();
someInstance.Name = "NewName";
someInstance.PhoneNumber = 12132434;
ObjectContainer.Store(someInstance); // This is the update call
[This is just pseudo-code]
So you don't need to match objects to each other as you would have to when using an RDBMS.
However, you need to make sure you are not using a different instance of ObjectContainer, because a different container will not know these objects are the same instance (since there is no ID field in them).
Your application architecture should help to do this for most workflows, so there should be really only one IObjectContainer around. Only if timespans are really long (e.g. you need to store a reference to the object in a different database and process it somehow) it'd use the UUID. AS you already pointed out, that requires to store the ID somewhere else and hence complexifies your architecture.
If you however intend to create a new object and 'overwrite' the old object, things get somewhat more complicated because of other objects that might refer to it. However, this is a somehwat pathological case and should typically be handled within the domain model itself, e.g. by copying object data from one object to another.
You should load the object via its ID:
objectContainer.get().ext().getByID(id);
or via its UUID:
objectContainer.get().ext().getByUUID(uuId);
See the docs for the latter one. For an explanation see the answer here or the docs here. In short use uuid only for long term referencing.