I have a webapp which I am planning on converting into a REST api and have decided to use CakePHP for this - the current form is written in ColdFusion.
The database is a couple million records in size with 20 tables or so and a few associative tables that handle the many-to-many situations.
I'm looking for the best method to start the CakePHP solution mainly in regards to the database. Should I import my existing db and just use cake to access its current form? Should I bake a fresh database structure (in order to stay within the cake standards) then figure out how to get my data into the new db, and maintain relationships etc (how?)?
Edit:
There are many users on the existing app, but when the new CakePHP api is setup and ready to go, the old service will be closed to use the new one.
The current app is not designed in an MVC way, are you referring to Models as being synonymous with Tables? There are many existing tables with foreign key relationships but they are not named using the CakePHP standards - so not sure if this will break CakePHP or make its features not as usable.
Time is an issue, but I'd rather take the time now and get it done the correct way, instead of having to re-visit shortly.
I largely depends on your situation:
Are there people using the old application? - This will mean you
can't really create another database for your new app if you want to
access new information.
Is there really a need to change the relationships of models? - I don't think you should change unless you
really need to.
Cost - How much time are you willing to spend on the migration?
Note:
You can modify almost everything on your model to cope up with the previous database/table structure.
Related
I'm new to webdev and I'm trying to use passport for registration/authentication on a site I'm setting up. I'm also going to write an application in node later on that will be using some of the user data (users will need to provide an API key for an account on another site that I will use to pull data into the application).
At the moment, the main issue I'm having is figuring out what goes where. I've found plenty of resources that explain how to create an app using passport, but nothing shows how it would be incorporated into your website or where the files should be in relation to your website. I'm relatively new to Node.js, and while I've written a few small applications I have never hosted them anywhere.
Bonus question: I'm using MongoDB with passport and I was also planning to use it to store some JSON my application will be receiving from API calls. However, I wanted to use MySQL to store some data as well. More specifically, I'm planning to save the raw JSON then I'll create a relational database out of the data I need from the JSON and then keep the rest in MongoDB for easy access. Is this common/smart, or should I focus on keeping everything in my MongoDB? I'm relatively new to NoSQL.
Thanks in advance for any help.
I would reference this tutorial. I just recently used this to help myself with a new application. Also there is an example of the same thing but in SQL here. So not sure what you mean by " where the files should be in relation to your website". The information related to to authentication should go in your database.
To your "bonus question" you can use two databases. The key here is to ask yourself why and what are the true needs for data, and how is this data accessed and used. From ground up I would like one and stick with it. If at some point later you realize a certain type of data would be better in a different database then you can add it.
Side note: look into an IDE such as webstorm to help you out.
Is there a way to create a new database in an ROR app automatically.
What I'm trying to do is create a new database for each new user that signs up for my site. so if the new user sign-up is successful a new database with some empty tables will be created.
Ever new user will get a new database and ever new database will be the same tables inside of it, but the information that each user will store will be different.
the reason I believe I need this due to if the user no longer want to use my system I can provide them the information that they stored on my DB and then drop the DB and tables with great ease
what I'm looking for is something like the mysql_create_db() in php
Dont you think that you are making a simple system complex? The way you are thinking is not scalable. For example, if you have thousands of user you have to create same amount of database tables!! Where most of the tables might be of no use. That is definitely ridiculous...
If you just want to achieve the followings
Each user will have his own data.
User may want to export data.
If users close his account you will delete all his data
then you better think the whole as a single application with a single database. Design your database accordingly and better look for the best DRY practices of rails to implement that.
This is not a good way to store users in a relational database, especially when using an application framework like ruby on rails which depends on your following convention over configuration.
Have one user Model and use the Devise and then Cancan gems to manage roles and permissions. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here and that's just what this would be doing.
If there are other considerations such as size or performance, please spell them out in more detail. The reasons you give (ease of management) would not be a good reason to go down that path.
It's an interesting idea and has uses in other areas, but really not so good for your standard user tables.
First a background. Our application is built on ASP.NET MVC3, .NET 4.0, and uses Linq-to-Sql (PLINQO) as its primary means of data access. Our web application is a multi-tenant/multi-client system where each client gets their own Sql Server database. Each Sql Server database up to now has had exactly the same schema.
Often times, clients will ask us to track custom fields in their Db that other clients don't track. The way we've handled this is by reserving a number of customfields in the db in our main tables. For example, our Widget table may have a CustomText1, CustomText2.. CustomText10, and a CustomDate1, CustomDate2..CustomDate10 fields. Again, all our schemas across clients are the same, so Linq-to-Sql handles these fields just as easily as any other field.
Now we are running into an issue where a client wants several hundred CustomBool fields, but doesn't need the others. So, basically, we are researching for ways to still use the Linq-to-Sql, but have it work against potentially different schemas depending on the database it is connected to (although they are different in a very specific way.)
Too much code has already been built on Linq-to-Sql and accessing the Widget classes generated by it that I'd like to not just fall back to straight SQL.
I've seen answers here and on the web on ways for Linq to Sql to access different tables that have the same schema, but I have not found a good answer to the same table name across different dbs with different columns.
Is this possible?
If the main objective is to store a few extra fields for existing domain objects then why not create a generic table that can store key value pairs. This is extremely flexible since there is no need to change your schema if a customer requires a new property.
We do this frequently and normally have some helpers to correctly cast the properties e.g.
Service.GetProperty<bool>("SomeCustomProperty")
If you are looking for a more "pluggable" domain model that can be completely different for each tenant, I think you will struggle if you are following a database driven approach and using the L2S designer to generate your code.
To achieve this you really need to be generating your database based on your code (domain driven design) which will give you much more flexibility i.e. you can load a tenant specific configuration (set of classes, business rules etc.) at runtime and use this to generate/validate your schema.
Update
It would be good if you could elaborate on exactly what design approach you have taken i.e. are you using the Linq designer and generating your model from the database?
It's clear that a generic key value pair store is not going to meet your querying requirements.
It's hard to provide a solution without suggesting a different technology. Relational SQL databases aren't really suited for dynamic domain models. You may be better off with a document database such as MongoDb or RavenDb where you are not tied to a specific schema. You could even make use of these just for your custom properties.
If that's not ideal then another solution would be to use something like Dapper to construct your queries. Assuming you are developing against interfaces you can have a implementation of your data service per tenant that makes use of their custom fields.
Ayende did a whole series of posts on Multitenancy and covers tenant specific domain models. It starts here and may be of some use to you.
I have an application written in PHP/MySQL (symfony, to be specific) that I'd (potentially) like to rewrite in Rails. I know how to create scaffolding for tables that don't exist yet, but how do I get Rails to read my existing table structure and create scaffolding based on that?
Update: it turns out I can run the following command to get Rails to generate models for me:
rails generate scaffold Bank --no-migration
But it doesn't give me forms. I would prefer something that gives me forms.
The answer is db:schema:dump.
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/migrations.html
The easiest route is to pretend that you are writing a fresh app with a similar database schema - you can then create your models and migrations with the old schema in mind, but without being restricted by it. At a later stage, you can create a database migration script to copy all the old data into the new schema.
I'm doing this right now. The benefit of this approach is that you can take advantage of all of the rapid development tools and techniques provided by Rails (including scaffolds) without being slowed by trying to retrofit to the exact same schema.
However, if you do decide that you don't like this approach, and you do need to map your new models to existing tables, there are a number of configuration options provided by active record where you can override the convention over configuration naming patterns and map model names to tables names, set oddly named ID fields etc. For example:
class Mammals < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "tbl_Squirrels"
set_primary_key :squirrel_id
end
The above will help Rails attempt to read your existing table, but success will depend upon how well the existing table structures matches Rails conventions. You may have to supply more configuration information to get it to work, and even then it might not work.
Finally, it may be worth considering the use of DataMapper which I believe is more suited to existing brownfield databases than ActiveRecord, because it allows you to map everything, but of course you will need to learn that API if you don't already know it.
First a bit about the environment:
We use a program called Clearview to manage service relationships with our customers, including call center and field service work. In order to better support clients and our field technicians we also developed a web site to provide access to the service records in Clearview and reporting. Over time our need to customize the behavior and add new features led to more and more things being tied to this website and it's database.
At this point we're dealing with things like a Company being defined partly in the Clearview database and partly in the website database. For good measure we're also starting to tie the scripting for our phone system into the same website, which will require talking to the phone system's own database as well.
All of this is set up and working... BUT we don't have a good data layer to work with it all. We moved to Linq to SQL and now have two DBMLs that we can use, along with some custom classes I wrote before I'd ever heard of Linq, along with some of the old style ADO datasets. So yeah, basically things are a mess.
What I want is a data layer that provides a single front end for our applications, and on the back end manages everything into the correct database.
I had heard something about Entity Framework allowing classes to be built from multiple sources, but it turns out there can only be one database. So the question is, how could I proceed with this?
I'm currently thinking of getting the Linq To SQL classes all set for each database, then manually writing Linq compatible front ends that tie those together. Seems like a lot of work, and given Linq's limitations (such as not being able to refresh) I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Could I do something with Entity Framework that would turn out better? Should I look into another tool? Am I crazy?
The Entity Framework does give a certain measure of database independence, insofar as you can build an entity model from one database, and then connect it to a different database by using a different entity connect string. However, as you say, it's still just one database, and, moreover, it's limited to databases which support the Entity Framework. Many do, but not all of them. You could use multiple entity models within a single application in order to combine multiple databases using the Entity Framework. There is some information on this on the ADO.NET team blog. However, the Entity Framework support for doing this is, at best, in an early stage.
My approach to this problem is to abstract my use of the Entity Framework behind the Repository pattern. The most immediate benefit of this, for me, is to make unit testing very simple; instead of trying to mock my Entity model, I simply substitute a mock repository which returns IQueryables. But the same pattern is also really good for combining multiple data sources, or data sources for which there is no Entity Framework provider, such as a non-data-services-aware Web service.
So I'm not going to say, "Don't use the Entity Framework." I like it, and use it, myself. In view of recent news from Microsoft, I believe it is a better choice than LINQ to SQL. But it will not, by itself, solve the problem you describe. Use the Repository pattern.
if you want to use tools like Linq2SQl or EF and don't want to have to manage multiple DBMLS (or whaetever its called in EF or other tools), you could create views in your website database, that reference back to the ClearView or Phone system's DB.
This allows you to decouple your web site from their database structure. I believe Linq2Sql and EF can use a view as the source for an Entity. If they can't look at nHibernate.
This will also let you have composite entities that are pulled from the various data sources. There are some limitations updating views in SQL Server; however, you can define your own Instead of trigger(s) on the view which can then do the actual insert update delete statements.
L2S works with views, perfectly, in my project. You only need to make a small trick:
1. Add a secondary DB table to the current DB as a view.
2. In Designer, add a primary key attribute to a id field on the view.
3. Only now, add an association to whatever other table you want in the original DB.
Now, you might see the view available for the navigation.