I wish to generate automated messages that are associated with a finite (>20, < 100) number of types:
class Message(models.Model):
MSG_CHOICES = (
('MEETING', 'Meeting Reminder'),
('STATUS', 'Status Change Reminder'),
...
)
message = models.CharField(max_length=100)
msg_type = models.CharField(max_length=10, choices=MSG_CHOICES)
The actual message of each will depend on the type and arguments I must feed it at some point. For example, a 'MEETING' message will basically be:
"Hi, you have a meeting at %s with %s." % (time, person_to_meet)
while a 'STATUS' message will be something like
"Hi, this is a reminder that you changed your %s status to %s." % (status_type, new_status)
Now, the complexity here is that we have to render the message differently for the different types. Here's my attempt at brainstorming some different approaches:
revamp the model to have a base message model and a derived one for each, with its own type of constructor, saving the "string templates" inside the constructors for each model. This fits the pattern of separating models with different logic (and I'd usually do this for a model of different "types"), but feels clunky because besides the logic of creating the messages, these guys are basically the same. The only difference in logic comes from creating the messages themselves, and it seems like a waste to split just because of it.
keep the model as is, create class methods in the code to make a factory for each type, saving the "string templates" inside the class (or even inside the database). This is the easiest, but it feels dirty.
this is the creative/crazy one (hence the title): keep the model as is, and save the string templates as actual template files. In the constructors, use the Django template library to render those files and return the strings. This seems good because it separates out hard-coded data from code-logic, but it feels wonky since I'm using templates at two different levels of the code (one for making models and one for the views). It "feels" wrong but I can't really pinpoint why.
So the main questions:
What is the best-practice for this situation? Is it one of these or is it some other approach?
is there a "model" example of this practice somewhere? I feel lots of systems generate automated alerts/messages, so if one has particularly good code I'd like to look at it.
Thanks!
-Yan
IMHO, you shouldn't be storing the message in the db at all. You are storing the msg_type. That should really be enough. Your logic to display the information to the user (via the template) should handle this. This would allow you to localize the message if you needed to at some point in the future based on the Accept-Language header. In my experience, it's a bad idea to store user messages in the db. And, at least to my way of thinking, it's not really true business logic. It seems to belong in the UI layer. Ok. Just my opinion on it. This question is pretty old. I would be curious to read what you ultimately ended up doing here.
Related
We have a WPF desktop application that uses MVVM pattern and DDD (well, let's say that at least my model classes that store data named by entities taken from the real world). APP uses several microservices through REST API. And it worked perfectly. Until we thought that it's time to use some facade for back-end part to unite all those microservices and get only data that we need for particular screen.
BUT. The question is, how to make them live together.
On the one hand, we have dynamically returned data from graphql. It
means that, for example, if we have list of people on the one screen,
we will request id, name, surname and role of the person. On the
different screen for dropdown of people we will request the same data
but without role.
On the other hand we have class Person that has static set of fields Name, Surname, Role and Id, which person has in "real life"
If we use the same Person class with graphql, converting data from JSON to model Person, both screens will work fine, but behind the scene one screen that doesn't need Role wouldn't request it from graphQL. And we will have a situation when model class Person will have field Role but it will be just empty (which is i believe is kind of smells. At least I don't feel like it would be easy to maintain such a code. Developer needs to add some information to the screen, opens model, sees that Role is there, bind the field to the screen and goes to drink cofee. And then oops, there is the fields but there was no data assigned ).
Two variants I have on my mind are:
either to not use models and DDD and map data directly to ViewModel
(which personally feels like ruining everything we had before).
or we map that dynamic data to our existing models and different field for different screens (for the same class Person e.g.) will be
empty (because not requested).
Maybe somebody has already used such a combination. How do you use it and what pros and cons are?
It's a fairly common situation where you have a data layer returns many columns but only some are used in a given view.
There is no absolute "best" solution independent of how much impact the full set of columns will have on performance. Which might in turn be linked to things like caching.
You could write services that return subsets of data and then you only use the necessary bandwidth. Sort of a CQRS pattern but with maybe more models than just read + write.
Often this is unnecessary and the complications introduced do not compensate for the increased cost of maintenance.
What is often done is just to map from model to viewmodel (and back). The viewmodel that needs just 4 columns just has 4 properties and any more returned by the model are not copied. The viewmodel that needs 5 has 5 properties and they are copied from the model.
We have multiple projects with multiple portlets and need to send an array of objects between them.
Our situation:
One of the porlets is like a "Master-portlet", it will be responsible for all the REST-calls and consume json-data and parse it to Java-Objects.
All the other portlets will receive an array of objects and show them to the user.
Our thoughts and solution:
We wanted to implement this by sending arrays of objects trough events. One of the "smaller" portlets will send an event to the "Master-portlet" and the "Master-portlet" will then answer with a new event and send the right array of objects back.
Our problem:
We dont know how to send arrays of objects trough events. Is this even possible?
Also we are not sure if this is the right way to solve this. Are events ment to send a bigger amount of data?
Is there a better solution for our case? Maybe it would be better to implement a database and all the portlets get the information from there?
Consider portlet events (and portlets) the UI layer of your application. Based on this, judge if the amount of data that you send back and forth makes sense or not. Also, if you closely couple the portlets, you're just hiding the fact that they can only function together - at least a questionable idea. You rather want them to react to common circumstances (events), but not rely on a specific source of events (master portlet) being available.
That being said: The more complex the data is that you send as payload of a JSR-286 event, the easier you run into classloading problems in cases where your portlets are in different webapplications. If you restrict yourself to Java native types (e.g. String, Map, etc) you will omit problems with the classloader.
Typically you want to communicate changes to the current context (e.g. new "current customer" selected - and an identifier) but not all of the particular data (e.g. the new customer's name and order history). The rest of the data typically comes through the business layer anyway.
That's not to say that you absolutely must not couple your portlets - just that my preference is to rather have them very loosely coupled, so that I can add individual small portlets that replace those that I thought of yesterday.
If you have some time, I've covered a bit of this in a webinar last year, I hope that this adds some clarification where I was too vague in this quick answer.
I'm supporting a server for an online card game and while thinking about refactoring it into a better state I have found myself unable to decide what is a proper object model for my needs.
I have a Player class which has a lot of attributes. The first problem is just that - the class is too big. The second problem is that I don't know how to refactor it. I will list some of the attributes and issues with these.
Some attributes are very tightly bound to a player: nick, email, last login &c. These, I suppose, are to be kept directly in the player class and in the same table in the DB.
Now, some attributes are a little more difficult, like money and gold amount. The problem with these is that they are historically stored in a different table, there might be some more currencies later on and that they MUST be synched into the database at their own pace.
Third category of attributes are loosely coupled to the player, like status string, experience, achievements, statistics &c. These are stored in different tables in the DB and MUST be stored, retrieved, cached and synchronized at their own pace.
Note that one of the big problems here is that we have to implement relatively complex database synchronization schemes because we have a lot of online players and our game is soft-realtime and we have to make load on the DB as low as possible.
My questions are:
How to determine which attributes to store within a player class and which not to? Say, experience, nickname, money amount?
When one has some attributes that may be grouped together like (strength, agility, endurance, &c.) and (handItem, headItem, feetItem, weapon) when they should be grouped and when not?
What to do with complex database synchronization schemes? Make a separate model for each attribute that needs to be synched independently or make some DataManager classes to take them apart and work with them?
What to do with the need for a class to have several different "data representations" for external consumers? Like XML, Json, another XML for some external service, human-readable string, &c.
I'm sorry if my questions are bogus, I'm not really good at OOP design, I'm more an FP guy. And my English is not very good =).
There is no "limit" to what you can store in a player class. As long as it is concerning him and him only, it should be in his class. But one thing you should consider is to make several player classes. The idea is : if you don't need is, don't query it. You may have PlayerView_Small, PlayerBuying, PlayerFighting, PlayerSettings (depending on your game, they may not be fulfilling the exact same purpose)... This way for each "need" of info on a player, you only load the player data you need, and can handle it properly. Also, you may use inheritance if some class is only a more detailed version of the other.
If you are talking about the class, it may be in a sub-class PlayerAttributes of which an instance is contained into PlayerFighting and PlayerView_Detailed. In the database, it might be interesting to store it as a string (conveniently outputted by our class, and accepted in constructor), to avoid having too much fields, but you will lose the sorting ability. That's probably not a problem in our case, but might be in some others.
Blank for now, I don't understand where there is synchronization, will edit when informed.
In your PlayerViewDetailInfo(or in your PlayerAllData depending what you need), you place some methods such as ToXmlClient1(), ToJson(), ToHumanReadableString() (although that might be a bit confusing to the eye, you should consider HTML^^). The class having the method should be the class with the least (but sufficient to provide the answer) data. When requested, you load the Player... which has the method giving the correct output, and you write it directly in the response.
I've run into reoccuring problem for which I haven't found any good examples or patterns.
I have one core service that performs all heavy datasbase operations and that sends results to different front ends (html, silverlight/flash, web services etc).
One of the service operation is "GetDocuments", which provides a list of documents based on different filter criterias. If I only had one front-end, I would like to package the result in a list of Document DTOs (Data transfer objects) that just contains the data. However, different front-ends needs different amounts of "metadata". The simples client just needs the document headline and a link reference. Other clients wants a short text snippet of the document, another one also wants a thumbnail and a third wants the name of the author. Its basically all up to the implementation of the GUI what needs to be displayed.
Whats the best way to model this:
As a lot of different DTOs (Document, DocumentWithThumbnail, DocumentWithTextSnippet)
tends to become a lot of classes
As one DTO containing all the data, where the client choose what to display
Lots of unnecessary data sent
As one DTO where certain fields are populated based on what the client requested
Tends to become a very large class that needs to be extended over time
One DTO but with some kind of generic "Metadata" field containing requested metadata.
Or are there other options?
Since I want a high performance service, I need to think about both network load and caching strategies.
Does anyone have any good patterns or practices that might help me?
What I would do is give the front end the ability to request the presence of the wanted metadata ( say getDocument( WITH_THUMBNAILS | WITH_TEXT_SNIPPET ) )
Then this DTO is built with only this requested information.
Adding all the possible metadata is as you said, unacceptable.
I will surely stay with one class defining all the possible methods (getTitle(), getThumbnail()) and if possible it will return a placeholder when the thumbnail was not requested. Something like "Image not available".
If you want to model this like a pattern, take a look at the factory patterns.
Hope this helps you.
Is there any noticable cost to creating a DTO that has all the data any of your views could need and using it everywhere? I would do that, especially since it insulates you from a requirement change down the line to have one of the views incorporate data one of the other views uses
ex. Maybe your silverlight/flash view doesn't show the title itself b/c it's in the thumb now, but they decide they want to sort by it later.
To clarify, I do not necesarily think you need to pass down all of the data every time, but I think your DTO class should define all of them. Just don't fall into the pits of premature optimization or analysis paralysis. Do the simplest thing first, then justify added complexity. Throw it all in and profile it. If the perf is unacceptable, optimize and try again.
Say, there is a Page that has many blocks associated with it. And each block needs custom rendering, saving and data.
Simplest it is, from the code point of view, to define different classes (hence, models) for each of these models. Simplified as follows:
class Page(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=64)
class Block(models.Model):
page = models.ForeignKey(Page)
class Meta():
abstract = True
class BlockType1(Block):
other_data = models.CharField(max_length=32)
def render(self):
"""Some "stuff" here """
pass
class BlockType2(Block):
other_data2 = models.CharField(max_length=32)
def render(self):
"""Some "other stuff" here """
pass
But then,
Even with this code, I can't do a query like page.block_set.all() to obtain all the different blocks, irrespective of the block type.
The reason for the above is that, each model defines a different table; Working around to accomplish it using a linking model and generic foreign keys, can solve the problem, but it still leaves multiple database tables queries per page.
What would be the right way to model it? Can the generic foreign keys (or something else) be used in some way, to store the data preferably in the same database table, yet achieve inheritance paradigms.
Update:
My point was, How can I still get the OOP paradigms to work. Using a same method with so many ifs is not what I wanted to do.
The best solution, seems to me, is to create separate standard python class (Preferably in a different blocks.py), that defines a save which saves the data and its "type" by instantiating the same model. Then create a template tag and a filter that calls the render, save, and other methods based on the model's type.
Don't model the page in the database. Pages are a presentation thing.
First -- and foremost -- get the data right.
"And each block needs custom rendering, saving and data." Break this down: you have unique data. Ignore the "block" and "rendering" from a model perspective. Just define the data without regard to presentation.
Seriously. Just define the data in the model without any consideration of presentation or rending or anything else. Get the data model right.
If you confuse the model and the presentation, you'll never get anything to work well. And if you do get it to work, you'll never be able to extend or reuse it.
Second -- only after the data model is right -- you can turn to presentation.
Your "blocks" may be done simply with HTML <div> tags and a style sheet. Try that first.
After all, the model works and is very simple. This is just HTML and CSS, separate from the model.
Your "blocks" may require custom template tags to create more complex, conditional HTML. Try that second.
Your "blocks" may -- in an extreme case -- be so complex that you have to write a specialized view function to transform several objects into HTML. This is very, very rare. You should not do this until you are sure that you can't do this with template tags.
Edit.
"query different external data sources"
"separate simple classes (not Models) that have a save method, that write to the same database table."
You have three completely different, unrelated, separate things.
Model. The persistent model. With the save() method. These do very, very little.
They have attributes and a few methods. No "query different external data sources". No "rendering in HTML".
External Data Sources. These are ordinary Python classes that acquire data.
These objects (1) get external data and (2) create Model objects. And nothing else. No "persistence". No "rendering in HTML".
Presentation. These are ordinary Django templates that present the Model objects. No external query. No persistence.
I just finished a prototype of system that has this problem in spades: a base Product class and about 200 detail classes that vary wildly. There are many situations where we are doing general queries against Product, but then want to to deal with the subclass-specific details during rendering. E.g. get all Products from Vendor X, but display with slightly different templates for each group from a specific subclass.
I added hidden fields for a GenericForeignKey to the base class and it auto-fills the content_type & object_id of the child class at save() time. When we have a generic Product object we can say obj = prod.detail and then work directly with the subclass object. Took about 20 lines of code and it works great.
The one gotcha we ran into during testing was that manage.py dumpdata followed by manage.py loaddata kept throwing Integrity Errors. Turns out this is a well-known problem and a fix is expected in the 1.2 release. We work around it by using mysql commands to dump/reload the test dataset.