Lets take an example of WinForms applcation and making invoice. On the Invoice form we retrieve a list of products, so the user will be ale to pick products for current invoice. Lets also consider that during this process user realizes that he needs to add a new product (or edit current) to ProductList before he can place it in invoice. So he opens a ProductForm where all the products are retreived (again).
It could also be in opposite order, that user first edits Products, and then without closing the Products Form, opens new Invoice. The principle is that data is two times loaded, and effectively its the same data.
What is the propper way to handle this scenario, so we can tell one form that data is already loaded, and to retrieve that data from memory? And when all the consumers (Forms) of the data are closed, then also the data should be released from memory? Or I am going in wrong direction, and there is a better way?
Thanks,
Goran
Definitelly go with data loaded "twice" or you will introduce much worse problems.
Sharing data means sharing ObjectContext. Even in WinForms application this is considered as bad approach. Check this article (it is about NHibernate but the description is valid for EF as well).
The problem is that ObjectContext is unit of work. If share context between two windows you can easily get into situation where you modify data in first window (without saving them!) and you continue in second window where you push save button but it will save data from both windows! You can't selectively save data only from one window when you share the context.
If the Controls that are using the data are all child controls of a shared Parent control, then you could just pass around the datacontext, so that they all shared the same datacontext.
However, the general use case with databases, which is what backs EF in most cases, is to read the data in each time that it is needed.
A solution to this if as you say you already have the item being used in one form is to just take a Refrence to that item into your new form.
So in the case Where you have an invoice which has a Product List and you want to add to the product list, you could pass the product list from the invoice to the opening product list.
There are some issues with this:
If another user changes the datasource while one has opened it (a.k.a. Concurrency)
Handling save don't save scenarios where they may have made a change in one area that they don't actually want added to the data.
However, unless it is a true performance issues, I would just load the data every time. You can simplify this a lot by using the repository pattern, so you can just call a single method to get a list of products or an invoice, or whatever part of data you need.
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.
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.
I have a situation where, in a model's afterSave callback, I'm trying to access data from a distant association (it's a legacy data model with a very wonky association linkage). What I'm finding is that within the callback I can execute a find call on the model, but if I exit right then, the record is never inserted into the database. The lack of a record means that I can't execute a find on the related model using data that was just inserted into the current.
I haven't found any mention of when data is actually committed with respect to when the afterSave callback is engaged. I'm working with legacy code, but I see no indication that we're specifically engaging transactions, so I'm trying to figure out what my options might be.
Thanks.
UPDATE
The gist of the scenario is this: We're taking event registrations, but folks can be wait listed. A user can register (or be registered) for a given Date. After a registration is complete, I need to check the wait list for the existence of a record for the registering user (WaitList.user_id) on the date being registered for (WaitList.date_id). If such a record exists, it can be deleted because it's become an active registration.
The legacy schema puts me in a place where the registration isn't directly tied to a date so I can't get the Date.id easily. Instead, Registration->Registrant->Ticket->Date. Unintuitive, I know, but it is what it is for now. Even better (sarcasm included), we have a view named attendees that rolls all of this info up and from which I would be able to use the newly created Registration->id to return Attendee.date_id. Since the record doesn't exist, it's not available in the view.
Hopefully that provides a little more context.
What's the purpose of the find query inside of your afterSave?
Update
Is it at all possible to properly associate the records? Or are we talking about way too much refactoring for it to be worth it? You could move the check to the controller if it's not possible to modify the associations between the records.
Something like (in psuedo code)
if (save->isSuccessful) {
if (onWaitList) {
// delete record
}
}
It's not best practice, but it will get you around your issue.
Bear with me as I am coming from a traditional web development background, using ASP.Net, and even server side MVC. I am attempting to build a highly interactive single-page application using Backbone.js to help organize my javascript code and build the UI.
I am having trouble with some concepts, or approaches to building the components of my UI, and deciding how to handle certain aspects. I am going to use this oversimplified screen shot as a basis for my questions and discussion.
Let's use a "TO-DO" application as an example (of course.) The UI is pretty simple. I have the following "components"...
A results list which shows the current set of to-dos that match the currently selected criteria
A list of my to-do lists (Personal, Work, Blog Project)
A list of due date filters (Today, Tomorrow, This Week, Next Week)
A list of tags (Bug, Feature, Idea, Follow Up)
A search box
Desired Functionality
Update the results whenever any of the search criteria changes (choose a list, choose a due data, choose one or more tags, enter search text, etc.)
The user can edit, add, and delete lists. (not really shown in this mock up)
The user can edit, add, and delete tags. (not really shown in this mock up)
The user can edit, add, and delete to-do items. (not really shown in this mock up)
Data Models
There are several models that I identified that are "data" related. These were easy to identify.
ToDo (represents a single to-do item)
ToDoCollection (represents a collection of to-do items)
ToDoList (represents a single to-do list)
ToDoListCollection (represents a collection of to-do lists)
Tag (represents a single tag)
TagCollection (represents a collection of tags)
How to Store UI State?
This is where I am having trouble. I want to show which items in my menus (on the left side) are currently selected. I can certainly listen for events and add a "selected" class to items as they are selected, but I also have rules, like "only one list can be selected at a time", but "any number of tags" can be selected at a time. Also, because the To-Do List menu and the tags menu are dynamic, they already are associated with a ToDoListCollection and TagCollection models already. They are rendered according to the state of these "data models".
So, how do I handle the management of this UI state for all these different views using Backbone? I appreciate any ideas or suggestions.
Thanks!
I had exactly the question you did, and I'll let you know the secret: cheat.
What you have here is two different application layers, and some confusion about them. The first layer is the relationship between to-do objects in your system. These, you store in a traditional object relational model, and you create/retrieve/update/delete them as you would any other RESTful application.
The second layer is the relationship between your display of these objects, and the objects themselves. There's some state there you want to preserve. Here's the important insight: as long as every object GET, PUT, or POSTED to the system has a unique ID, the second layer can be completely independent of the first.
The first layer is a RESTful API to "a to-do manager." The second is something unique to this presentation. It's relationship to data in the first is tenuous. So here's what I did: I encoded that presentation layer state into a JSON object and wrote it to an 8-bit clean text field in the user's profile. Every time the user changes state, I do that.
When the app loads, it loads the bulk of the data from the REST API and the presentation layer information, discards any in the presentation layer that doesn't make sense, and then starts Backbone.History and initializes the presentation. And the server doesn't need to know any details at all about how the client works. As long as the client speaks your RESTful lingo, it can save "miscellaneous things this particular client cares about" to that text field without affecting your objects or their relationship.
I have a collection of "active objects". That is, objects that need to preiodically update themselves. In turn, these objects should be used to update a WPF-based GUI.
In the past I would just have each object include it's own thread, but that only makes sense when working with a finite number of objects with well-defined life-cycles. Now I'm using objects that only exist when needed by a form so the life cycle is unpredicable. Also, I can have dozens of objects all making database and web service calls.
Under normal circumstances the update interval is 1 second, but it can take up to 30 seconds due to timeouts.
So, what design would you recommend?
You may use one dispatcher (scheduler) for all or group of active objects. Dispatcher can process high priority tasks at the first place then other ones.
You can see this article about the long-running active objects with code to find out how to do it. In additional I recommend to look at Half Sync/ Half Async pattern.
If you have questions - welcome.
I am not an expert, but I would just have the objects fire an event indicating when they've changed. The GUI can then refresh the necessary parts of itself (easy when using data binding and INotifyPropertyChanged) whenever it receives an event.
I'd probably try to generalize out some sort of data bus, if possible, and when objects are 'active' have them add themselves to a list of objects to be updated. I'd especially be tempted to use this pattern if the objects are backed by a database, as that way you can aggregate multiple queries, instead of having to do a single query per each object.
If there end up being no listeners for a specific object, no big deal, the data just goes nowhere.
The core updater code can then use a single timer (or multiple, or whatever is appropriate) to determine when to get updates. Doing this as more of a dataflow, and less of a 'state update' will probably save a lot of sanity in the end.