I would like to provide an OData interface for my application. The examples that I have seen use EF to map the LINQ queries to SQL queries.
IMHO it this approach pretty much exposes the physical database model to the world (I know EF/NH give some flexibility, but it is limited).
What I would like the be able to do, is the following:
Define my Data Contract via some DTOs.
Have a OData Service that will let users query over my Data Contract Dtos.
Have some translation layer to translate the queries over the DTOs to queries over, let's say, EF model or NH.
Execute the translated query.
Map the results back to my Data Contracts.
Am I out of my mind or is there a solution to this problem?
I have 2 models, the "contract" model and the "persisted" model. The persisted model is what Entity Framework is mapped to. The Get method that returns an IQueryable returns a IQueryable which is just something along the lines of:
return dbContext.PersistedCustomers.Select(x => new Customer(Name = x.OtherName, ...));
At least when using DbContext as opposed to ObjectContext, Where criteria based on the contract model get translated automatically into Where criteria of the PersistedModel to be executed against the database. Hopefully the differences between the two aren't that complex that you need some weird data massaging. I'm sure there's limits to the reversal it does.
One way of doing it would be to create a ViewModel that will represent your Model and then use AutoMapper to map between them. You can use like this:
var address = _Context.Addresses.Where(p => p.AddressID == addressID).Single();
AddressVM result = Mapper.Map<AddressVM>(address);
Related
Im trying to learn GraphQL with Laravel & Lighthouse and have a question Im hoping someone can help me with. I have the following five database tables which are also defined in my Laravel models:
users
books
user_books
book_series
book_copies
I'd like to create a GraphQL endpoint that allows me to get back an array of users and the books they own, where I can pull data from multiple tables into one subfield called "books" like so:
query {
users {
name
books {
title
issue_number
condition
user_notes
}
}
}
To accomplish this in SQL is easy using joins like this:
$users = User::all();
foreach ($users as $user) {
$user['books'] = DB::select('SELECT
book_series.title,
book.issue_number
book_copies.condition,
user_books.notes as user_notes
FROM user_books
JOIN book_copies ON user_books.book_copy_id = book_copies.id
JOIN books ON book_copies.book_id = books.id
JOIN book_series ON books.series_id = book_series.id
WHERE user_books.user_id = ?',[$user['id']])->get();
}
How would I model this in my GraphQL schema file when the object type for "books" is a mashup of properties from four other object types (Book, UserBook, BookCopy, and BookSeries)?
Edit: I was able to get all the data I need by doing a query that looks like this:
users {
name
userBooks {
user_notes
bookCopy {
condition
book {
issue_number
series {
title
}
}
}
}
}
However, as you can see, the data is separated into multiple child objects and is not as ideal as getting it all in one flat "books" object. If anyone knows how I might accomplish getting all the data back in one flat object, Id love to know.
I also noticed that the field names for the relationships need to match up exactly with my controller method names within each model, which are camelCase as per Laravel naming conventions. Except for my other fields are matching the database column names which are lower_underscore. This is a slight nitpick.
Ok, after you edited your question, I will write the answer here, to answer your new questions.
However, as you can see, the data is separated into multiple child objects and is not as ideal as getting it all in one flat "books" object. If anyone knows how I might accomplish getting all the data back in one flat object, Id love to know.
The thing is, that this kind of fetching data is a central idea of GraphQL. You have some types, and these types may have some relations to each other. So you are able to fetch any relations of object, in any depth, even circular.
Lighthouse gives you out of the box support to eloquent relations with batch loading, avoiding the N+1 performance problem.
You also have to keep in mind - every field (literally, EVERY field) in your GraphQL definition is resolved on server. So there is a resolve function for each of the fields. So you are free to write your own resolver for particular fields.
You actually can define a type in your GraphQL, that fits your initial expectation. Then you can define a root Query field e.g. fetchUsers, and create you custom field resolver. You can read in the docs, how it works and how to implement this: https://lighthouse-php.com/5.2/the-basics/fields.html#hello-world
In this field resolver you are able to make your own data fetching, even without using any Laravel/Eloquent API. One thing you have to take care of - return a correct data type with the same structure as your return type in GraphQL for this field.
So to sum up - you have the option to do this. But in my opinion, you have to write more own code, cover it with tests on you own, which turns out in more work for you. I think it is simpler to use build-in directives, like #find, #paginate, #all in combination with relations-directives, which all covered with tests, and don't care about implementation.
I also noticed that the field names for the relationships need to match up exactly with my controller method names within each model, which are camelCase as per Laravel naming conventions.
You probably means methods within Model class, not controller.
Lighthouse provides a #rename directive, which you can use to define different name in GraphQL for your attributes. For the relation directives you can pass an relation parameter, which will be used to fetch the data. so for your example you can use something like this:
type User {
#...
user_books: [Book!]! #hasMany(relation: "userBooks")
}
But in our project we decided to use snak_case also for relations, to keep GraphQL clean with consistent naming convention and less effort
Let's say we are structuring an application with MVC (also, Stores/Services). SQL is used as the persistence mechanism. And memory efficiency is a major concern.
Obviously, we should take advantage of SQL queries and only ask for fields of our Model in theory object when they are needed.
For example, an mobile app may need to display a list of title for articles, while the body of the article doesn't get displayed until user taps on a specific title. In this case, we ask SQL for just the titles first.
The question is, what should the model object look like?
The solutions I can think of are:
Enhance the model with some states that indicate which fields are populated. This could also be archived by using nil/NULL/None values on unpopulated fields of the model object.
Split the theoretical model to multiple classes. Following the previous example, we could have an Article class and an ArticleDetail class, with a one-to-one relation.
Forget the Store object, let each model object lazy evaluate it's costly fields. The model would have to know about its persistence mechanism.
This should be a common problem. How do the ORM in your favorite frameworks/libraries resolve it? Any best practices?
I am currently working on a project where we are rewriting software that was originally written in Visual DataFlex and we are changing it to use SQL and rewriting it into a C# client program and a C#/ASP.Net website. The current database for this is really horrible and has just had columns added to table or pipe(|) characters stuck between the cell values when they needed to add new fields. So we have things like a person table with over 200 columns because stuff like 6 lots of (addressline1, addressline2, town, city, country, postcode) columns for storing different addresses (home/postal/accountPostal/ect...).
What we would like to do is restructure the database, but we also need to keep using the current structure so that the original software can still work as well. What I would like to know is would it be possible using Linq to write a DataContext Object Model Class that could sort of interpret the data base structures so that we could continue to use the current database structure, but to the code it could look like we where using the new structure, and then once different modules of the software are rewritten we could change the object model to use the correct data structure???
First of all, since you mention the DataContext I think you're looking at Linq to SQL? I would advice to use the Entity Framework. The Entity Framework has more advanced modeling capabilities that you can use in a scenario as yours. It has the ability to construct for example a type from multiple tables, use inheritance or complex types.
The Entity Framework creates a model for you that consists of three parts.
SSDL which stores how your database looks.
CSDL which stores your model (your objects and the relationships between them)
MSL which tells the Entity Framework how to map from your objects to the database structure.
Using this you can have a legacy database and map this to a Domain Model that's more suited to your needs.
The Entity Framework has the ability to create a starting model from your database (where all tables, columns and associations are mapped) en then you can begin restructuring this model.
These classes are generated as partial so you could extend them by for exampling splitting the database piped fields into separate properties.
Have you also thought about using Views? If possible you could at views to your database that give you a nicer dataschema to work with and then base your model on the views in combination with stored procedures.
Hope this gives you any ideas.
I am designing a project in asp.net mvc3, i have designed my database in sql server, add i am using ado.net.
This is my controller action
public ViewResult ProductFormulationIndex()
{
return View(db.ProductFormulation.ToList());
}
means i want to display all fields of ProductFormulation table.
this is my table:-
and this is my productCategory Table
in my ProductFormulationIndex.cshtml i want to display Code of ProductCategory Table, not only id. So what should i do in controller or in Model for it ?
you may suggest tutorial related to it.
Thanks in advance.
You need a view model which is specifically designed for the view.
When defining your view models you shouldn't be thinking in terms of tables. SQL tables have absolutely no meaning in a view. Think in terms of what information you need to show and define your view models accordingly.
Therefore, You can define a view model like:
public class ProductInformation
{
...
public string CategoryCode {get; set;}
...
}
Or public Category ProductCategory.
You can use AutoMapper to convert between your real models and the view model you have defined.
You can find a good tutorial at http://weblogs.asp.net/shijuvarghese/archive/2010/02/01/view-model-pattern-and-automapper-in-asp-net-mvc-applications.aspx
Although I may not answer your question you are touching on some interesting points.
I subscribe to the school of thought that says one should not query an object model but rather make use of a denormalized lightweght query layer.
You will pobably quickly run into the lazy-loading and projection issue: i.e. you do not always require the related data and you do not always require all the fields. A query layer takes care of this quite nicely since using a denormalized model means that when you do your query you do not need to do N-number of joins to get the related data. You will still at some point need to gather up the data but you actual view queries will be order fo magnitude faster.
Also, getting all the data (by joining) for your denormalized model is a once-off affair as opposed to doing it each and every time you display the relevant data on the front-end.
Hope that makes sense :)
I'm looking at using LINQ to SQL for a new project I'm working on, but I do not want to expose the LINQ classes to my applications. For example, do an select in link returns a System.Linq.IQueryable<> collection. As well, all the classes generated to represent the database use Table, Column, EntityRef classes and attributes. It's fine if my data access layer has LINQ dependancies, but I don't want my application to.
So my thoughts are that I will have to use the LINQ to SQL generated classes as intermediate classes that are not exposed outside of my data access layer, and create my own classes which the application can use. What is the easiest/effecient way to get the data from the LINQ to SQL classes into my own classes?
I totally agree with your thinking - I would try to avoid exposing LINQ to SQL entities directly to the world.
I would definitely recommend using a "domain model" of your own, either a 1:1 mirror of the underlying LINQ to SQL entities, or a different one.
As long as you have a domain model that is quite similar to the underlying LINQ to SQL entities, you can use tools like AutoMapper to easily shuffle data between your LINQ to SQL entities and your domain model classes. It should be pretty easy and flexible to do it that way!
Rob Conery published a webcast series entitled the MVC-Storefront where he introduces a variation of the repository pattern that accomplishes what you want.
I've used ideas from the screencast on a reasonably large project and was quite pleased with the results.
There are, however, issues with the pattern, particularly around concurrency and detached scenarios that you will want to think about up front before fully committing to it.
I detailed some of my pain with concurrency in this pattern here.
I'll be interested in the responses you get because I'm considering the exact same thing. I want to use the L2S entities classes on our backend but use much lighter-weight entities for application consumption.
Randy
I would advise against using LINQ to SQL on a new project, since Microsoft will no longer be developing this project, except for maybe fine-tuning some issues. LINQ to SQL is perfectly usable and is acceptable, but I would not advise new projects to use it. If you like LINQ to SQL, you should definately look into using Entity Framework instead of LINQ to SQL.
This is my current incarnation of how I am going about doing this:
I have a DataContext class that I created by adding a LINQ to SQL class, and droping tables onto the designer. I called the class MyDataContext and put it in a namespace called Linq. My database has a table called Tag, which generated a class, also in the Linq namespace. I changed all the accessors to internal, so they would not be visible outside of the data access layer.
namespace Linq
{
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.DatabaseAttribute(Name="MyDb")]
internal partial class MyDataContext : System.Data.Linq.DataContext
{
...
}
[Table(Name="dbo.vTag")]
internal partial class Tag
{
....
}
}
I then created a class called DataAccess which is what will be exposed to any application that references the assembly. I also created my own Tag class. The DataAccess class and my new Tag class are in a different namespace called Data to avoid collisions with the generated classes which are in the Linq namespace. I use Linq to Sql to query for an IList of Linq.Tag objects, then I use Linq to generate me a list of Data.Tag objects from the Linq.Tag objects.
I'd like to hear comments on this to see if there's a more performant way to do this, or one that requires less code. I also wasn't too happy with my use of duplicate class names (Tag) so I'm interested to hear any ideas on naming suggestions too.
namespace Data
{
public class DataAaccess
{
public IList<Tag> List_Tags()
{
using (Linq.MyDataContext dal = new Linq.MyDataContext ())
{
IList<Linq.Tag> lstTags = (from c in dal.Tags select c).ToList();
return (from tag in lstTags
select new Data.Tag()
{
ID = tag.ID,
Name = tag.Name,
Parent_ID = tag.Parent_ID
}).ToList();
}
}
}
}
What you are proposing is having two separate models. That means boilerplate code, which I've found is not necessary. I have more or less the same idea as you, but realized that this would be useless. I've suggested Entity Framework in another answer in this thread, and I want to make that point again here.
What you end up with is a model-soup, where you have to maintain two models instead of just the one. And that is definitely NOT desirable.
To go from the LINQ to SQL classes to your classes is a matter of some fairly straightfoward LINQ to Objects (or just initialisation for single objects).
More fun is going back from your model to the LINQ to SQL objects but this is fairly standard stuff (although something I'm still working out or I'd find you some specific references).