I understand that a IQueryable cannot be serialized. That means that queries can not be serialized, sent to a webservice, deserialized, queried and then sent back.
I was wondering if it is possible to convert a hibernate linq query to hql to be sent over the wire.
Is there another route I am missing?
I think I've seen ADO.NET Data Services as advertised to work with NHibernate:
http://wildermuth.com/2008/07/20/Silverlight_2_NHibernate_LINQ_==_Sweet
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/07/21/ADO.Net-Data-Services-with-NHibernate.aspx
This is an old post, and not sure how maintained this feature is, but its worth a shot.
I have a suggestion to you. Do not try to serialize query. Rather provide your user with an ability to compose arbitrary LINQ expression. Then send the expression over the wire (there is a gotcha here, since expressions are not serializable) to your server.
I have recently submitted to NHibernate.Linq project a change to their NHibernateExtensions class - a new ISession extension method List, which accepts an expression and fills the given list with the respective data, much like ICriteria.List method. The change was accepted (see here) so downloading the recent version of NHibernate.Linq should contain this method.
Anyway, you can find the details of this approach here.
Related
When editing a form, the user may sometimes not change the form and still click the submit button. In one of the controller methods below, will the save() method perform a query to the database and update the fields even if the user didn't change anything?
PostMapping("/edit_entry/{entryId}")
public String update_entry(
#PathVariable("entryId") Long entryId,
#RequestParam String title,
#RequestParam String text
) {
Entry entry = this.entryRepo.findById(entryId).get();
if (!entry.getTitle().equals(title))
entry.setTitle(title);
if (!entry.getText().equals(text))
entry.setText(text);
this.entryRepo.save(entry);
return "redirect:/entries";
}
And also, are the "if" statements necessary in this case?
What exactly happens during a call to save(…) depends on the underling persistence technology. Fundamentally there a re two categories of implementations:
Implementations that actively manage entities. Examples of this are JPA and Neo4j. Those implementations keep track of the entities returned from the store and thus are able to detect changes in the first place. You pay for this with additional complexity as the entities are usually instrumented in some way and the change detection of course also takes time even if it ends up not detecting any changes. On the upside though the only trigger updates if needed.
Implementations that do not actively manage entities. Examples are JDBC and MongoDB. Those implementations do not keep track of entities loaded from the data store and thus do not instrument them. That also means that there is no way of detecting changes as all the implementation sees is an entity instance without any further context.
In your concrete example, a MongoDB implementation would still issue an update while JPA will not issue an update at all if the request params do not contain differing values.
First off, this is related to Spring Data Rest: How to search by another object's key? which appears to be resolved in https://jira.spring.io/browse/DATAREST-502
My issue is (I believe) and extension of this. I'm seeing the following behavior:
I have two repository queries defined e.g.
Person findByAccount(#Param("account") Account account));
Collection<Person> findByAccountIn(#Param("accounts") Collection<Account> accounts));
Both search methods are exposed via spring-data-rest. I can access the first using a url such as http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccount?account=http://localhost:8080/accounts/1
I can access the second method using a url such as http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccountIn?accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/1, but if I try to pass in MULTIPLE accounts, such as
http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccountIn?accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/1,http://localhost:8080/accounts/2,
It will run the query except will IGNORE the first account (http://localhost:8080/accounts/1) and only search based on the second (http://localhost:8080/accounts/2)
What is the proper technique for passing in a Collection of entities to a repository argument over the REST API? I find it works great for a single entity, but not for a Collection. Note that both of these repository methods are working as expected when directly accessing the JpaRepository.
Also note that these queries seem to work if the collection is of some primitive type, for example findByAccountIdIn(#Param("accountIds") Collection<Long> accountIds) is accessible with intended functionality via http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccountIdIn?accountIds=1,2. This leads me to believe it's possibly an error in the way a list of URIs is passed into a query method which expects a Collection of corresponding entities.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Try repeat the query parameter as most servers will interpret this as a list. It might not be the prettiest solution but should work.
http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccountIn?accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/1&accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/2
I know that this is forever old, but I found the answer.
I will put this here for anyone else who should wander this way:
How to use List in endpoint exported by Spring Data REST?
List<Person> findByAccountIn(#Param("accounts") Account... accounts);
the request would look like this:
http://localhost:8080/people/search/findByAccountIn?accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/1&accounts=http://localhost:8080/accounts/2&accounts=http://localhost/accounts/anotheraccountid
I'm currently working on a project where I'm going to do a lot of comparison of similar non-database (service layer objects for this discuss) objects and objects retrieved from the database via LinqToSql. For the sake of this discussion, assume I have a service layer Product object with a string field that is represented in the database. However, in the database, there is also a primary key Id that is not represented in the service layer.
Accordingly (as I often do for unit testing etc), I overrode Equals(Object), Equals(Product), and GetHashCode and implemented IEquatable with the expectation that I would be able to write code like this:
myContext.Products.Where(p => p.Equals(passedInProduct).SingleOrDefault();
And so forth.
The Equals override is tested and works. The objects are mutable so the usual caveats apply to the GetHashCode override. However, for the purposes of this example, the objects are not modified except by LtS and could be made readonly.
Here's the simple test:
Create a test object in memory and commit to the LtS context. By committing, the test object is populated with a few auto-generated fields.
Create another identical test object in memory (separate reference)
Attempt to retrieve the first object from the database using the second object as the criteria. (see code line above).
// Setup
string productDesc = "12A";
Product testProduct1 = _CreateTestProductInDatabase(productDesc);
Product testProduct2 = _CreateTestProduct(productDesc);
// check setup
Product retrievedProduct1 = ProductRepo.Retrieve(testProduct1);
//Assert.IsNotNull(retrievedProduct1);
// execute - try to retrieve the 'equivalent' product object
Product retrievedProduct2 = ProductRepo.Retrieve(testProduct2);
A simplified version of Retrieve (cruft removed is just parameter checks etc):
using (var dbContext = new ProductDataContext()) {
Product retrievedProduct = dbContext.Products
.Where(p => p.Equals(product)).SingleOrDefault();
NB: The overridden Equals method knows not to care about the auto-generated fields from the database and only looks at the string that is represented in the service layer.
Here's what I observed:
Retrieve on testProduct1 succeeds (no surprise, equal by reference)
Retrieve on testProduct2 fails (null)
The overridden Equals method called in the Retrieve method is never hit during either Retrieve calls
However, the overridden Equals method is called multiple times by the context on SubmitChanges (called when creating the first test object in the database) (works as expected).
Statically, the compiler knows that the type of the objects being emitted and is able to resolve the type.
So my specific questions:
Am I trying to do something ill-advised? Seems like a straightforward use of Equals.
Corollary to first question: alternate suggestions to deal with linq to sql equality checking while keeping comparison details inside the objects rather than the repository
Why might I have observed the Equals method being resolved in SubmitChanges but not in the Where clause?
I'm as much interested in understanding as making my Equals calls work. But I also would love to learn how to make this 'pattern' work rather than just understand why it appears to be an 'anti-pattern' in the contest of LtS and C#.
Please don't suggest I just filter directly on the context with Where statements. Obviously, I can remove the Equals call and do that. However, some of the other objects (not presented here) are large and a bit complicated. For the sake of maintenance and clarity, I want to keep knowledge of how to compare itself to another of its own type in one place and ideally as part of the object in question.
Some other things I tried that didn't change the behavior:
Overloaded and used == instead
Casting the lambda variable to the type p => (Product)p
Getting an IQueryable object first and calling Equals in the Where clause
Some other things I tried that didn't work:
Creating a static ProductEquals(Product first, Product second) method: System.NotSupportedException:has no supported translation to SQL.
Thanks StackOverflow contributors!
Re Possible dups: I've read ~10 other questions. I'd love a pointer to an exact duplicate but most don't seem to directly address what seems to be an oddity of LinqToSql.
Am I trying to do something ill-advised?
Absolutely. Consider what LINQ to SQL does: it creates a SQL representation of your query. It doesn't know what your overridden Equals method does, so can't translate that logic into SQL.
Corollary to first question: alternate suggestions to deal with linq to sql equality checking while keeping comparison details inside the objects rather than the repository
You'd need to do something with expression trees to represent the equality that way - and then build those expression trees up into a full query. It won't be fun, but it should be possible. It will affect how you build all your queries though.
I would have expected most database representations to be ID-based though, so you should be able to just compare IDs for equality. Usually when I've seen attempts to really model data in an OO fashion but store it in a database, the leakiness of the abstraction has caused a lot of pain.
Why might I have observed the Equals method being resolved in SubmitChanges but not in the Where clause?
Presumably SubmitChanges is working against a set of in-memory objects to work out what's changed - it doesn't have to do any conversion to SQL to do that part.
Within the context of C# on .Net 4.0, are there any built-in objects that implement IQueryable<T>?
IQueryable objects are produced by Queryable Providers (ex. LINQ to SQL, LINQ to Entities/Entity Framework, etc). Virtually nothing you can instantiate with new in the basic .NET Framework implements IQueryable.
IQueryable is an interface designed to be used to create Queryable providers, which allow the LINQ library to be leveraged against an external data store by building a parse-able expression tree. By nature, Queryables require a context - information regarding what exactly you're querying. Using new to create any IQueryable type, regardless of whether it's possible, doesn't get you very far.
That being said, any IEnumerable can be converted into an IQueryable by using the AsQueryable() extension method. This creates a superficially-similar, but functionally very different construct behind the scenes as when using LINQ methods against a plain IEnumerable object. This is probably the most plentiful source of queryables you have access to without setting up an actual IQueryable provider. This changeover is very useful for unit-testing LINQ-based algorithms as you don't need the actual data store, just a list of in-memory data that can imitate it.
Well, your question is kinda weird... but I believe that if you look at an interface in Reflector, it will give you a list of implementers in the loaded assemblies.
As a disclaimer I have not used Reflector since it went pay-for-play so I might be wrong.
EntityCollection does, as does EnumerableQuery.
Not that I think either of these is going to get you anywhere. To help, we need to know what you are really trying to solve. If you are writing a LINQ provider, you should read this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb546158.aspx.
They recommend writing your own implementation.
If you are looking for a way to instantiate an empty list of IQueryable, then you can use this:
IQueryable<MyEntity> = Enumerable.Empty<MyEntity>().AsQueryable()
I've been learning about IQueryable and lazy loading/deferred execution of queries.
Is it possible to expose this functionality over WCF? I'd like to expose a LINQ-to-SQL service that returns an IQueryable which I can then perform additional queries on at the client, and finally execute using a .ToList(). Is OData format applicable at all in this context?
If possible, what is the term for this technique and what are some good tutorials I can follow? Thank you.
You should check WCF Data Services which will allow you to define Linq query on the client. WCF Data Services are probably the only solution for your requirement.
IQueryable is still only interface and the functionality depends on the type implementing the interface. You can't directly expose Linq-To-Sql or Linq-To-Entities queries. There are multiple reasons like short living contexts or serialization which will execute the query so the client will get list of all objects instead of the query.
as far as i know, the datacontext is not serializable meaning that you cannot pass it around with WCF
You can use http://interlinq.codeplex.com/ which allows you to send Linq query over WCF.
WCF Data Services only can be using with webHttpBinding and not all Linq queries can be expressed. Writing queries when WCF Data Service is used is not so attractive - requires string expressions such as:
.AddQueryOption("$filter", "Id eq 100");
https://remotelinq.codeplex.com/ is another choice. But it works in AppDomain to scan the Current Assemblies and serialize them. This tech is not suitable to WinRT as no Domains for WinRT App
I've been struggling with the same question, and realized that a well formed question is a problem solved.
IQueryable basically serves to filter the query before sending it to your DB call so instead of getting 1000 records and filter only 10, you get those 10 to begin with. That filtering belongs to your Service Layer, but if you are building an API I would assume you would map it with AND/OR parameters in your URL.
http://{host}/{entity}/q?name=john&age=21.
So you end up with something like this:
Filter:Column1=Value1 > http://{host}/{entity}q?column1=value1 > SELECT *
FROM Entity
WHERE Column1=Value1
MVC > WCF > DB
You can find a very good sample [here]
Lastly, since your payload from the WCF will be most likely a JSON, you can (and should) then deserialize them in your Domain Models inside a collection. It is until this point where the paging should occur, so I would recommend some WCF caching (and since its HTTP, it's really simple). You still will be using LINQ on the WebApp side, just w/o "WHERE" LINQ clause (unless you want to dynamically create the URL expressed above?)
For a complex OR query, you mind end up with multiple WCF queries (1 per "AND") and then concatenate them all together
If it's possible to send IQuerable<> over WCF it's not a good thing security wise, since IQuerable<> could expose stuff like the connection string to the database.
Some of the previous comments seem promising though.