When I try to switch to edit mode for a Report source, a popup comes up telling me
"A new task will be created for the following request of user XXX".
A transport request is also being suggested.
I don't want to save my changes in this request however, but in another existing one. I am not aware of any versioning systems being implemented in my system, and don't know how to check that.
Is what i'm trying to achieve possible? And if so, how?
No, this is not possible. There are very good reasons for this being an exclusive lock -- reasons that you should know about before you attempt to change anything. Briefly speaking
The CTS only notes that an object was touched, not what change was made.
When the transport is released, the entire object in its current state is exported - there is no delta/diff logic involved.
Therefore you can't separately transport changes to the same development object. Furthermore, if you serialize this manually, the second transport will always comprise the changes of the first one.
Things get slightly more complicated with partial objects - you can have LIMU METH objects (methods of a class) in different transports, but as soon as you try to lock the R3TR CLAS main class, you'll have to resolve that.
Related
I'm trying to create a simple REST API and map it to CRUD. I have an ORM (DataMapper) which has methods like create, update and destroy.
If I get it right, given a resource {a:'foo',b:'bar',c:'baz'}, performing a PUT {b:'qux'} is supposed to replace the resource and result in the same {b:'qux'}, and doing a PATCH {b:'qux'} should result in {a:'foo',b:'qux',c:'baz'}.
Would PUT be implemented with ORM's destroy+create to completely recreate a database record (with the same old id) or both PUT and PATCH would be mapped to update (and only a record's fields would be manipulated)?
Well, Both the actions actually means update, where PUT is full update and PATCH is partial update. In case of PUT you already know the identifier of the resource and the resource already exists, so it is not a create and delete action per se. Infact, you can make do with providing only PUT action for your resource. The only idiosyncrasy of put is the client is supposed to provide full representation of resource. Since all request for put, must come after the GET of the resource, thus providing full representation shouldn't be problem for client anyway.
a) what PATCH does depends on the media type in the request. AFAIK, there is no definition for application/json, so you'd need to clarify that in the question.
b) both PUT and PATCH are update operations (with an optional create if the resource doesn't exist yet)
I have a WPF application that uses entity framework. I am going to be implementing a repository pattern to make interactions with EF simple and more testable. Multiple clients can use this application and connect to the same database and do CRUD operations. I am trying to think of a way to synchronize clients repositories when one makes a change to the database. Could anyone give me some direction on how one would solve this type of issue, and some possible patterns that would be beneficial for this type of problem?
I would be very open to any information/books on how to keep clients synchronized, and even be alerted of things other clients are doing(The only thing I could think of was having a server process running that passes messages around). Thank you
The easiest way by far to keep every client UI up to date is just to simply refresh the data every so often. If it's really that important, you can set a DispatcherTimer to tick every minute when you can get the latest data that is being displayed.
Clearly, I'm not suggesting that you refresh an item that is being edited, but if you get the fresh data, you can certainly compare collections with what's being displayed currently. Rather than just replacing the old collection items with the new, you can be more user friendly and just add the new ones, remove the deleted ones and update the newer ones.
You could even detect whether an item being currently edited has been saved by another user since the current user opened it and alert them to the fact. So rather than concentrating on some system to track all data changes, you should put your effort into being able to detect changes between two sets of data and then seamlessly integrating it into the current UI state.
UPDATE >>>
There is absolutely no benefit from holding a complete set of data in your application (or repository). In fact, you may well find that it adds detrimental effects, due to the extra RAM requirements. If you are polling data every few minutes, then it will always be up to date anyway.
So rather than asking for all of the data all of the time, just ask for what the user wants to see (dependant on which view they are currently in) and update it every now and then. I do this by simply fetching the same data that the view requires when it is first opened. I wrote some methods that compare every property of every item with their older counterparts in the UI and switch old for new.
Think of the Equals method... You could do something like this:
public override bool Equals(Release otherRelease)
{
return base.Equals(otherRelease) && Title == otherRelease.Title &&
Artist.Equals(otherRelease.Artist) && Artists.Equals(otherRelease.Artists);
}
(Don't actually use the Equals method though, or you'll run into problems later). And then something like this:
if (!oldRelease.Equals(newRelease)) oldRelease.UpdatePropertyValues(newRelease);
And/Or this:
if (!oldReleases.Contains(newRelease) oldReleases.Add(newRelease);
I'm guessing that you get the picture now.
In his book on DbContext, #RowanMiller shows how to use the DbSet.Local property to avoid 1.) unnecessary roundtrips to the database and 2.) passing around collections (created with e.g. ToList()) in the application (page 24). I then tried to follow this approach. However, I noticed that from one using [} – block to another, the DbSet.Local property becomes empty:
ObservableCollection<Destination> destinationsList;
using (var context = new BAContext())
{
var query = from d in context.Destinations …;
query.Load();
destinationsList = context.Destinations.Local; //Nonzero here.
}
//Do stuff with destinationsList
using (var context = new BAContext())
{
//context.Destinations.Local zero here again;
//So no way of getting the in-memory data from the previous using- block here?
//Do I have to do another roundtrip to the database here to get the same data I wanted
//to cache locally???
}
Then, what is the point on page 24? How can I avoid the passing around of my collections if the DbSet.Local is only usable inside the using- block? Furthermore, how can I benefit from the change tracking if I use these short-lived context instances not handing over any cache data to each others under the hood? So, if the contexts should be short-lived for freeing resources such as connections, have I to give up the caching for this? I.e. I can’t use both at the same time (short-lived connections but long-lived cache)? So my only option would be to store the results returned by the query in my own variables, exactly what is discouraged in the motivation on page 24?
I am developing a WPF application which maybe will also become multi-tiered in the future, involving WCF. I know Julia has an example of this in her book, but I currently don’t have access to it. I found several others on the web, e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc700340.aspx (old ObjectContext, but good in explaining the inter-layer-collaborations). There, a long-lived context is used (although the disadvantages are mentioned, but no solution to these provided).
It’s not only that the single Destinations.Local gets lost, as you surely know all other entities fetched by the query are, too.
[Edit]:
After some more reading in Julia Lerman’s book, it seems to boil down to that EF does not have 2nd level caching per default; with some (considerable, I think) effort, however, ones can add 3rd party caching solutions, as is also described in the book and in various articles on MSDN, codeproject etc.
I would have appreciated if this problem had been mentioned in the section about DbSet.Local in the DbContext book that it is in fact a first level cache which is destroyed when the using {} block ends (just my proposal to make it more transparent to the readers). After first reading I had the impression DbSet.Local would always return the same reference (Singleton-style) also in the second using {} block despite the new DbContext instance.
But I am still unsure whether the 2nd level cache is the way to go for my WPF application (as Julia mentions the 2nd level cache in her article for distributed applications)? Or is the way to go to get my aggregate root instances (DDD, Eric Evans) of my domain model into memory by one or some queries in a using {} block, disposing the DbContext and only holding the references to the aggregate instances, this way avoiding a long-lived context? It would be great if you could help me with this decision.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh394143.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/435142/Entity-Framework-Second-Level-Caching-with-DbConte
http://blog.3d-logic.com/2012/03/31/using-tracing-and-caching-provider-wrappers-with-codefirst/
The Local property provides a “local view of all Added, Unchanged, and Modified entities in this set”. Like all change tracking it is specific to the context you are currently using.
The DB Context is a workspace for loading data and preparing changes.
If two users were to add changes at the same time, they must not know of the others changes before they saved them. They may discard their prepared changes which suddenly would lead to problems for other other user as well.
A DB Context should be short lived indeed, but may be longer than super short when necessary. Also consider that you may not save resources by keeping it short lived if you do not load and discard data but only add changes you will save. But it is not only about resources but also about the DB state potentially changing while the DB Context is still active and has data loaded; which may be important to keep in mind for longer living contexts.
If you do not know yet all related changes you want to save into the database at once then I suggest you do not use the DB Context to store your changes in-memory but in a data structure in your code.
You can of course use entity objects for doing so without an active DB Context. This makes sense if you do not have another appropriate data class for it and do not want to create one, or decide preparing the changes in them make more sense. You can then use DbSet.Attach to attach the entities to a DB Context for saving the changes when you are ready.
I have a very basic query. I am using WPF Binding to edit a object which is loaded by a ISession. If somebody edits this object in the form, because of two way binding and a stateful session, whenever I close the session, changes to the object made in the form are stored back in the database. Which is the best way to avoid this?
The methods I know:
Shadow copy the object and use the copied object as the DataContext (the method I am using as of now).
ISession.Clear
Use IStatelessSession.
Is there any way to reset the object to it's original form before closing the ISession?
If you look here: http://nhforge.org/wikis/howtonh/finding-dirty-properties-in-nhibernate.aspx
It is an example of finding dirty properties. NHibernate internally tracks a persistent object's state by way of the EntityEntry object.
This is useful for you, because with a little modification to the method above, you're able to get old values back ... which you can use to reset the properties.
As for closing your session causing the object to be flushed to the database, you can set the session FlushMode to FlushMode.Never. This will mean no database sync occurs until you call Session.Flush().
Alternatively, you can hook into IFlushEntityEventListener to reset the object state. There are a reasonable examples of using the NHibernate event system on google.
See Managing the caches on NHibernate Forge:
When Flush() is subsequently called, the state of that object will be synchronized with the database. If you do not want this synchronization to occur or if you are processing a huge number of objects and need to manage memory efficiently, the Evict() method may be used to remove the object and its collections from the first-level cache.
I think that sounds like what you want.
I would suggest the use of transactions. You just rollbackthe transaction if that is the case? what do you think?
I have a User object that, upon successful authentication, is tucked into the session (sans security info) for easy recall and for determining whether we have an authenticated user or anonymous session. There are several paths by which the user can alter some or all of his or her information and I'd like to keep that session value up to date. The obvious answer is to update the value in the afterSave() callback, but that, of course, violates MVC.
Is there another way of capturing every change in one place so that I don't have to drop session writes all over the place? I can't think of anything, nor have I been able to find any other ideas. Am I the only person trying to do something like this?
Thanks.
Final Solution: I marked neilcrookes' response as the answer, frankly, because there doesn't seem to be the better way. Since this way violates my OCD senses, though, I took a slightly different path. I decided to have my User::authenticate() method return the authenticated user object to the caller so it can do whatever it wants with it. One of the things that the callers "want" to do is to drop that value in the session. It's redundancy, but it's very, very limited. In my mind, that felt better than accessing the session from the model (though it's certainly a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario).
//in users controller
if ($this->User->save()) {
$this->Auth->login($this->User->read());
$this->Session->setFlash[.. etc]
And for the record, I do not agree with the answer of neilcrooks, but I will refrain from feeding the troll.
Some might disagree but I'd screw MVC, do it in Model::afterSave() and use $_SESSION - test for the session before writing to it, in case it's not started for example you are saving against the model in a shell or something.
MVC is a general pattern - a guideline, you can bang your head against it trying to figure out how to achieve something that doesn't quite fit, or just do it another way and move onto to something more important.
Bring on the flames.
after save
Use Like this
$this->Session->write('Auth.User.mmid', $kinde['Kindle']['id']);
You should be able to just use AppController to create the necessary callback(s) that keep your session data up to date. So, for instance, you could have your User model afterSave() set a property called changed to true. Then in your AppController->afterFilter() you check that property and update the session data as necessary.
Alternatively, you could write a component through which to update your user info and also your session data. Then any controller that needs to change user info just needs to include that component.
There's no need to write redundant code or break MVC.