I am trying to get Linq2SQL to work with my legacy database. I currently have a notes table that is generic to a few different entities and mapped m:m. Instead of mapping one relation table per entity type whoever designed this database decided to use a single relation table with a type column (as a varchar yuck!).
alt text http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/326/capturefm.png
How do I map Foo and Bar to have a Notes collection? Is this even possible. I am not seeing the light. I tried to have two classes FooNotes and BarNotes that inherit from RelateNotes and then mapping the Type field as the descriptor.
alt text http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3153/capture2f.png
This doesn't work and I receive the below error.
Bad Storage property: '_EntityID' on member 'TestLinq.BarNotes.EntityID'.
I don't want to get too far down the Linq2SQL road before realising it not possible. I am not allowed to change the database much.
Many Thanks,
I would consider expanding your app's design to include a Domain Model based layered architecture.
This way you can create a Domain Model that meets the requirements of the system while abstracting away how the mapping works underneath. For example, you could have a common interface for the data access layer that returns the mapped entities. An implementation of this interface could be created for the old 'string-equality' m2m relationship in the legacy database. One day when you are ready to ditch the legacy database, a new implementation could be created for a different ER db model which would allow your Domain Model (object model) and higher layers (services, UI etc) to remain unchanged (because they all utilise the common interface).
In your object model you could define each object that needs Notes and have them each contain a Notes collection for each instance. Eg. Foo has a collection of Notes; Bar has a collection of Notes. Your Repository interface would look after returning these entities but the implementation of that repo would worry about how it's read and persisted to the db.
Related
I have a system whereby you can create documents. You select the document type to create and a form is displayed. Data is then added to the form, and the document can be generated. In Laravel things are done via Models. I am creating a new Model for each document but I don't think this is the best way. An example of my database :
So at the heart of it are projects. I create a new project; I can now create documents for this project. When I select project brief from a select box, a form is displayed whereby I can input :
Project roles
Project Data
Deliverables
Budget
It's three text fields and a standard input field. If I select reporting doc from the select menu, I have to input the data for this document (which is a couple of normal inputs, a couple of text fields, and a date). Although they are both documents, they expect different data (which is why I have created a Model for each document).
The problems: As seen in the diagram, I want to allow supporting documents to be uploaded alongside a document which is generated. I have a doc_upload table for this. So a document can have one or more doc_uploads.
Going back to the MVC structure, in my DocUpload model I can't say that DocUpload belongs to both ProjectBriefDoc and ProjectReportingDoc because it can only belong to one Model. So not only am I going to create a new model for every single document, I will have to create a new Upload model for each document as well. As more documents are added, I can see this becoming a nightmare to manage.
I am after a more generic Model which can handle different types of documents. My question relates to the different types of data I need to capture for each document, and how I can fit this into my design.
I have a design that can work, but I think it is a bad idea. I am looking for advice to improve this design, taking into account that each document requires different input, and each document will need to allow for file uploads.
You don't need to have a table/Model for each document type you'll create.
A more flexible approach would be to have a project_documents table, where you'll have a project_id and some data related to it, and then a doc_uploads related to the project_documents table.
This way a project can have as many documents your business will ever need and each document can have as many files as it needs.
You could try something like that:
If you still want to keep both tables, your doc_upload table in your example can have two foreign keys and two belongsTo() Laravel Model declarations without conflicts (it's not a marriage, it's an open relationship).
Or you could use Polymorphic Relations to do the same thing, but it's an anti-pattern of Database Design (because it'll not ensure data integrity on the database level).
For a good reference about Database Design, google for "Bill Karwin" and "SQL Antipatterns".
This guy has a very good Slideshare presentation and a book written about this topic - he used to be an active SO user as well.
ok.
I have a suggestion..you don't have to have such a tight coupling on the doc_upload references. You can treat this actually as a stand alone table in your model that is not pegged to a single entity.. You can still use the ORM to CRUD your way through and manage this table..
What I would do is keep the doc_upload table and use it for all up_load references for all documents no matter what table model the document resides in and have the following fields in the doc_upload table
documenttype (which can be the object name the target document object)
documentid_fk (this is now the generic key to a single row in the appropriate document type table(s)
So given a document in a given table.. (you can derive the documenttype based on the model object) and you know the id of the document itself because you just pulled it from the db context.. should be able to pull all related documents in the doc_upload table that match those two values.
You may be able to use reflection in your model to know what Entity (doc type ) you are in.. and the key is just the key.. so you should be able.
You will still have to create a new model Entity for each flavor of project document you wish to have.. but that may not be too difficult if the rate of change is small..
You should be able to write a minimum amount of code to e pull all related uploaded documents into your app..
You may use inheritance by zero-or-one relation in data model design.
IMO having an abstract entity(table) called project-document containing shared properties of all documents, will serve you.
project-brief and project-report and other types of documents will be children of project-document table, having a zero-or-one relation. primary key of project-document will be foreign key and primary key of the children.
Now having one-to-many relation between project-document and doc-upload will solve the problem.
I also suggest adding a unique constraint {project_id, doc_type} inside project-document for cardinal check (if necessary)
As other answers are sort of alluding to, you probably don't want to have a different Model for different documents, but rather a single Model for "document" with different views on it for your different processes. Laravel seems to have a good "templating" system for implementing views:
http://laravel.com/docs/5.1/blade
http://daylerees.com/codebright-blade/
I'm newbie to designing class diagrams.
As my application works as REST API, I would like to use DTO-DAO design patterns. For user registration module, DB contains 3 tables for user signon, profile and address.
Do I need to create 3 DTOs and corresponding DAOs to insert/update user signon, profile and address?
If so, what if I only one table is created instead of three tables and dropped two tables in future?
Whatever design pattern you follow, data modelling is entirely upto you.Your design pattern should be based on your data modelling and your need. Not that,your data model will depend on the design pattern but on your need
You can create whatever dto objects you like. However both your database design and your dto design is driven by the concepts in your system (user/company/address etc) this often called the domain.
You'll often find that the two are very similar, after all they both represent the same domain!
As to whether you need different dtos for different calls that really depends on you. Do you need a different class to represent an insert/update call? What's the difference? Often the update has an id (whereas the insert hasn't had one assigned yet). So why not have two where the update inherits from the insert but adds the id property?
Delete dtos, you can do these as either an update or just as an id. After all why bother to populate an entire object you're about tot delete. Personally I'd just say
DeleteUser(int id);
Much easier!
We are working on a mapping application that uses Google Maps API to display points on a map. All points are currently fetched from a MySQL database (holding some 5M + records). Currently all entities are stored in separate tables with attributes representing individual properties.
This presents following problems:
Every time there's a new property we have to make changes in the database, application code and the front-end. This is all fine but some properties have to be added for all entities so that's when it becomes a nightmare to go through 50+ different tables and add new properties.
There's no way to find all entities which share any given property e.g. no way to find all schools/colleges or universities that have a geography dept (without querying schools,uni's and colleges separately).
Removing a property is equally painful.
No standards for defining properties in individual tables. Same property can exist with different name or data type in another table.
No way to link or group points based on their properties (somehow related to point 2).
We are thinking to redesign the whole database but without DBA's help and lack of professional DB design experience we are really struggling.
Another problem we're facing with the new design is that there are lot of shared attributes/properties between entities.
For example:
An entity called "university" has 100+ attributes. Other entities (e.g. hospitals,banks,etc) share quite a few attributes with universities for example atm machines, parking, cafeteria etc etc.
We dont really want to have properties in separate table [and then linking them back to entities w/ foreign keys] as it will require us adding/removing manually. Also generalizing properties will results in groups containing 50+ attributes. Not all records (i.e. entities) require those properties.
So with keeping that in mind here's what we are thinking about the new design:
Have separate tables for each entity containing some basic info e.g. id,name,etc etc.
Have 2 tables attribute type and attribute to store properties information.
Link each entity (or a table if you like) to attribute using a many-to-many relation.
Store addresses in different table called addresses link entities via foreign keys.
We think this will allow us to be more flexible when adding, removing or querying on attributes.
This design, however, will result in increased number of joins when fetching data e.g.to display all "attributes" for a given university we might have a query with 20+ joins to fetch all related attributes in a single row.
We desperately need to know some opinions or possible flaws in this design approach.
Thanks for your time.
In trying to generalize your question without more specific examples, it's hard to truly critique your approach. If you'd like some more in depth analysis, try whipping up an ER diagram.
If your data model is changing so much that you're constantly adding/removing properties and many of these properties overlap, you might be better off using EAV.
Otherwise, if you want to maintain a relational approach but are finding a lot of overlap with properties, you can analyze the entities and look for abstractions that link to them.
Ex) My Db has Puppies, Kittens, and Walruses all with a hasFur and furColor attribute. Remove those attributes from the 3 tables and create a FurryAnimal table that links to each of those 3.
Of course, the simplest answer is to not touch the data model. Instead, create Views on the underlying tables that you can use to address (5), (4) and (2)
1 cannot be an issue. There is one place where your objects are defined. Everything else is generated/derived from that. Just refactor your code until this is the case.
2 is solved by having a metamodel, where you describe which properties are where. This is probably needed for 1 too.
You might want to totally avoid the problem by programming this in Smalltalk with Seaside on a Gemstone object oriented database. Then you can just have objects with collections and don't need so many joins.
Okay, I'll be straight with you guys: I'm not sure exactly how Domain Driven my Design is, but I did start by building Model objects and ignoring the persistence layer altogether. Now I'm having difficulty deciding the best way to build my tables in SQL Server to match the models.
I'm building a web application in ASP.NET MVC, although I don't think the platform matters that much. I have the following object model hierarchy:
Property - has properties such as Address and Postcode
which have one or more
Case - inherits from PropertyObject
Quote - inherits from PropertyObject
which have one or more
Message - simple class that has properties Reference, Text and SentDate
Case and Quote have a lot of similar properties, so I also have a PropertyObject abstract base class that they inherit from. So Property has an Items property of type List which can contain both Case and Quote objects.
So essentially, I can have a Property that has a few Quotes and Cases and a load of Messages that can belong to either of those.
A PropertyObject has a Reference property (and therefore so do Quote and Case) so any Message object can be related back to a Quote OR Case by it's Reference property.
I'm thinking of using the Entity Framework to get my Models in and out of the database.
My initial thoughts were to have four tables: Property, Case, Quote and Message.
They'd all have their own sequential IDs, and the Case and Quote would be related back to Property by a PropertyID field.
The only way I can think of to relate a Message table back to the Case and Quote tables is to have both a RelationID and RelationType field, but there's no obvious way to tell SQL server how that relationship works, so I won't have any referential integrity.
Any ideas, suggestions, help?
Thanks,
Anthony
I am assuming Property doesn't also inherit from PropertyObject.
Given that these tables, Property, Case, Quote and Message, leads to a Table per Concrete Class or TPC inheritance strategy, which I generally don't recommend.
My recommendation is that you use either:
Table per Hierarchy or TPH - Case and Quote are stored in the same table with one column used as a discriminator, with nullable columns for properties that are not shared.
Table per Type or TPT - add a PropertyObject table with the shared fields and Case and Quote tables with just the extra fields for those types
Both of these strategies will allow you to maintain referential integrity and are supported by most ORMs.
see this for more: Tip 12 - How to choose an inheritance strategy
Hope this helps
Alex
Ahhh... Abstraction.
The trick with DDD is to recognize that abstraction is not always your friend. In some cases, too much abstraction leads to a too-complex relational model.
You don't always need inheritance. Indeed, the major purpose of inheritance is to reuse code. Reusing a structure can be important, but less so.
You have a prominent is-a pair of relationships: Case IS-A Property and Quote IS-A Property.
You have several ways to implement class hierarchies and "is-a" relationships.
As you've suggested with type discriminators to show which subclass this really is. This works when you often have to produce a union of the various subclasses. If you need all properties -- a union of CaseProperty and QuoteProperty, then this can work out.
You do not have to rely on inheritance; you can have disjoint tables for each set of relationships. CaseProperty and QuoteProperty. You'd have CaseMessage and QuoteMessage also, to follow the distinction forward.
You can have common features in a common table, and separate features in a separate table, and do a join to reconstruct a single object. So you might have a Property table with common features of all properties, plus CaseProperty and QuoteProperty with unique features of each subclass of Property. This is similar to what you're proposing with Case and Quote having foreign keys to Property.
You can flatten a polymorphic class hierarchy into a single table and use a type discriminator and NULL's. A master Property table has type discriminator for Case and Quote. Attributes of Case are nulled for rows that are supposed to be a Quote. Similarly, attributes of Quote are nulled for rows that are supposed to be a Case.
Your question "[how] to relate a Message table back to the Case and Quote tables" stems from a polymorphic set of subclases. In this case, the best solution might be this.
Message has an FK reference to Property.
Property has a type discriminator to separate Quote from Case. The Quote and Case class definitions both map to Property, but rely on a type discriminator, and (usually) different sets of columns.
The point is that the responsibility for Property, CaseProperty and QuoteProperty belongs to that class hierarchy, and not Message.
This is where the DDD concept of Services would come in. The Repository for each of your concrete classes only persist that entity, not the related objects.
So you have Property(), and is the base for your CaseProperty() : Property(). This special-entity is accessed via CasePropertyService(). Within here is where you would do your JOINs and such to the related tables in order to generate your CaseProperty() special entity (which is not really Case() and Property on its own, but a combination).
OT: Due to limitation of .net of where you can't inherit multiple classes, this is my work around. DDD is meant to be a guideline to the overall understanding of your domain. I often give my DDD outline to friends, and have them try to figure out what it does/represent. If it looks clean and they figure it out, it's clean. If your friends look at it and say, "I have no idea what you are trying to persist here." then go back to the drawing board.
But, there's a catch about using any ORM to persist storage of DDD objects (linq, EntityFramework, etc). Have a look at my answer over here:
Stackoverflow: Question about Repositories and their Save methods for domain objects
The catch is all objects must have an identity in the database for ORM. So, this helps you plan your DB structure.
I have recently moved away from using ORM to control direct access, and just have a clean DDD layer. I let my repositories and services control access to the DB layer, and use Velocity to entity-cache my objects. This actually works very well for: 1) DB performance, you design however is most efficient not being coupled to your DOmain objects with direct ORM representation, and 2) your domain model becomes much cleaner with no forced identies on Value Objects and such. Free!
I asked about Choosing a method to store user profiles the other day and received an interesting response from David Thomas Garcia suggesting I use the Table Module design pattern. It looks like this is probably the direction I want to take. Everything I've turned up with Google seems to be fairly high level discussion, so if anyone could point me in the direction of some examples or give me a better idea of the nuts and bolts involved that would be awesome.
The best reference is "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" by Martin Fowler:
Here's an excerpt from the section on Table Module:
A Table Module organizes domain
logic with one class per table in the
database, and a single instance of a
class contains the various procedures
that will act on the data. The
primary distinction with Domain
Model is that, if you have many
orders, a Domain Model will have one
order object per order while a Table
Module will have one object to handle
all orders.
Table Module would be particularly useful in the flexible database architecture you have described for your user profile data, basically the Entity-Attribute-Value design.
Typically, if you use Domain Model, each row in the underlying table becomes one object instance. Since you are storing user profile information in multiple rows, then you end up having to create many Domain Model objects, whereas what you really want is one object that encapsulates all the user properties.
Instead, the Table Module makes it easier for you to code logic that applies to multiple rows in the underlying database table. If you create a profile for a given user, you'd specify all those properties, and the Table Module class would have the code to translate that into a series of INSERT statements, one row per property.
$table->setUserProfile( $userid, array('firstname'=>'Kevin', 'lastname'=>'Loney') );
Likewise, querying a given user's profile would use the Table Module to map the multiple rows of the query result set to object members.
$hashArray = $table->getUserProfile( $userid );