So i know this is possible using a superclass, however, this is very limiting in flexibility. So my question is then, can i use an interface? Something ala.
interface Taggable {
/*Adds tag(s) and returns a list of currently set tags*/
List<String> addTags(String ... tag)
/*Removes tag(s) and returns a list of currently set tags*/
List<String> removeTags(String ... tag)
}
class User implements Taggable {
String username
static hasMany = [tags:Tag]
}
class Tag {
String name
static hasMany = [references:Taggable]
static belongsTo = Taggable
static constraints = {
name(nullable: false, blank: false, unique: true)
}
}
Im interested in a reference back to the object who has the following tag. This object however can't extend a concrete class. Thats why im wondering if this can be done with an interface instead.
So, can it be done?
Hibernate can map an interface - see example. I doubt if Grails supports this in by-convention mapping - but you can try using the mapping annotations from example above, or XML config.
edit: answering a comment question:
On a database level, you have to have a Taggable table for Tag.References to reference with a foreign key.
Discriminator will NOT defeat polymorphism, if it's added automatically - for instance, in table-per-hierarchy mapping, Hibernate/Gorm adds a class field in order to find out a concrete class when reading object from db.
If you map your Taggables to two tables - Taggable part to Taggable and everything else to specific table, referenced 1:1 - all the discriminator work should be done for you by Hibernate.
BTW class field is pretty long - it contains fully qualified class name.
edit 2:
Either way, it's getting pretty complex, and I'd personally go with the approach I suggested in another question:
dynamically query all the classes with Taggable interface for hasMany=[tags:Tag] property;
or, less preferable - to have a hand-crafted child table and a discriminator.
Related
In my PostgreSQL database I have:
CREATE TABLE category (
// ...
category_name_localization JSON not null,
);
In Java, I have a JDO class like so:
#javax.jdo.annotations.PersistenceCapable(table = "category" )
public class Category extends _BlueEntity implements Serializable {
//...
private org.json.simple.JSONObject category_name_localization;
#javax.jdo.annotations.Column( name = "category_name_localization" )
public org.json.simple.JSONObject getCategoryNameLocalization() {
return category_name_localization;
}
}
When I use this class, DataNucleus gives the following exception:
org.datanucleus.exceptions.NucleusUserException: Field "com.advantagegroup.blue.ui.entity.Category.category_name_localization" is a map that has been specified without a join table and neither the key nor the value has a mapped-by specified. This is invalid!
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager.newJoinTable(RDBMSStoreManager.java:2720)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.mapping.java.AbstractContainerMapping.initialize(AbstractContainerMapping.java:82)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.mapping.MappingManagerImpl.getMapping(MappingManagerImpl.java:680)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.table.ClassTable.manageMembers(ClassTable.java:518)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.table.ClassTable.manageClass(ClassTable.java:424)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.table.ClassTable.initializeForClass(ClassTable.java:1250)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.table.ClassTable.initialize(ClassTable.java:271)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager$ClassAdder.initializeClassTables(RDBMSStoreManager.java:3288)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager$ClassAdder.run(RDBMSStoreManager.java:2897)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.AbstractSchemaTransaction.execute(AbstractSchemaTransaction.java:118)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager.manageClasses(RDBMSStoreManager.java:1637)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager.getDatastoreClass(RDBMSStoreManager.java:665)
at org.datanucleus.store.rdbms.RDBMSStoreManager.getPropertiesForGenerator(RDBMSStoreManager.java:2098)
at org.datanucleus.store.AbstractStoreManager.getStrategyValue(AbstractStoreManager.java:1278)
at org.datanucleus.ExecutionContextImpl.newObjectId(ExecutionContextImpl.java:3668)
at org.datanucleus.state.StateManagerImpl.setIdentity(StateManagerImpl.java:2276)
at org.datanucleus.state.StateManagerImpl.initialiseForPersistentNew(StateManagerImpl.java:482)
at org.datanucleus.state.StateManagerImpl.initialiseForPersistentNew(StateManagerImpl.java:122)
at org.datanucleus.state.ObjectProviderFactoryImpl.newForPersistentNew(ObjectProviderFactoryImpl.java:218)
at org.datanucleus.ExecutionContextImpl.persistObjectInternal(ExecutionContextImpl.java:1986)
at org.datanucleus.ExecutionContextImpl.persistObjectWork(ExecutionContextImpl.java:1830)
at org.datanucleus.ExecutionContextImpl.persistObject(ExecutionContextImpl.java:1685)
at org.datanucleus.api.jdo.JDOPersistenceManager.jdoMakePersistent(JDOPersistenceManager.java:712)
at org.datanucleus.api.jdo.JDOPersistenceManager.makePersistent(JDOPersistenceManager.java:738)
at com.advantagegroup.blue.ui.jdo._BlueJdo.insert(_BlueJdo.java:40)
at ...
This error makes sense in a way, because org.json.simple.JSONObject extends Map. However, this field is not part of any relationships -- it is of type JSON and therefore it is natural to back it with JSONObject
How do I tell JDO / DataNucleus to chill and treat org.json.simple.JSONObject the same way it would a String or a Date?
Thanks!
DC
My understanding of this is that your default attempt is trying to persist a normal Map (since while it doesnt know what a JSONObject is, it does know what a Map is), and it will need a join table for that for RDBMS.
Since you presumably want the JSONObject persisted into a single column then you need to create a JDO AttributeConverter. I've done similar things with my own types and it works fine (i'm on v5.0.5 IIRC).
I also found this in their docs, for when you have your own Map class that it doesn't know how to handle by default in terms of replacing it with a proxy (to intercept the calls to put, putAll etc). If you add that line it will not try to wrap this field with a proxy (which it doesn't know how to do for that type, unless you tell it). If you wanted to auto-detect the JSONObject becoming "dirty" you would need to write a proxy wrapper, as per this page.
This doesn't answer how to map the column for that converter to use a "json" type in PostgreSQL, but i'd guess that if you set the sqlType you may get success in that respect.
In SQL, I have a 1:1 relationship defined between 2 tables which are linked by 2 mapping tables, four in total. I have no influence on the database schema.
I'd like to reflect this in my Code First model so that I can say Foo.Bar and Bar.Foo rather than Foo.Mapping1.Mapping2.Bar (or similar). Is this possible using the Fluent API? I know you can specify a many to many relationship using the designer which results in Foo.Bars and Bar.Foos so hopefully this is possible.
I don't know that you can map it with Fluent API but I know you can create an extension class and create an extension to handle the mapping like so:
public static class FooExtension
{
public static Bar Bar(this Foo)
{
var bar = Foo.Mapping1.Mapping2.Bar;
return bar;
}
}
Then you would call the extension method
var foosBar = Foo.Bar()
EF 4.1 synchronises reverse associations when you create your instances. Is there any documentation of or best practices guidance available for this behaviour?
What I mean by synchronising the reverse association is that given:
public class Blog
{
public Blog() { Posts = new List<Blog>(); }
public int Id { get; set; }
public ICollection<Post> Posts { get; private set; }
}
public class Post
{
public Blog Blog { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Then after the following line the Post will have it's Blog property set.
var blog = new Blog();
context.Blogs.Add(blog);
blog.Posts.Add(new Post());
I believe - but I'm not sure - with "synchronising the reverse association" you mean a feature in Entity Framework which is called Relationship Fix-up or Relationship Span and is responsible to assign automatically navigation properties between objects in the ObjectContext. This is not specific to EF 4.1 but exists also for older versions.
I don't know a comprehensive documentation for this feature but here are a few resources which may give a bit more insight - especially the second one:
A brief definition: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2009/04/03/tip-10-understanding-entity-framework-jargon.aspx
A more detailed explanation (Zeeshan Hirani): http://www.daltinkurt.com/upload/dosyalar/file/Diger/entity_framework_learning_guide.pdf (Chapter 3.4 at page 125 - 133)
About situations where one wants to avoid relationship span: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2009/04/07/tip-11-avoiding-relationship-span.aspx
Edit
I am not able to give a comprehensive explanation of relationship span and all its impacts. But I can try to give a few examples where I feel safe that it's not completely wrong what I say:
In the answer you have linked in the comment Morteza makes a difference between entities which are derived from EntityObject (only ObjectContext in EF 4.0, not possible with DbContext in EF 4.1) and POCOs (possible with ObjectContext and DbContext).
If you have POCOs then adding a new object to a navigation collection of another object which is already loaded into the context would not attach the new object to the context. This is not surprising because POCOs are, well..., POCOs, which means that they don't know anything about the EF context. Adding an object to a navigation collection is really nothing more than something like List<T>.Add(...). This generic Add method doesn't do any operation on the EF context.
This is another situation with EntityObject and EntityCollection which both have references to the context internally and can therefore attach to the context immediately when you add to the collection.
One conclusion from this consideration is that the last code example in your question would not actually set the Blog property in the Post when you use POCOs. But: It will be set after you have called DetectChanges or SaveChanges (which calls DetectChanges internally). In this situation DetectChanges (which is probably a very complex method) looks into context what objects are there (it'll find the Blog parent object) and then runs through the whole object graph (the Posts collection in our case) and checks if the other objects in the graph (the Post objects) are also in the context. If not - and this is the case in your example - it will attach them to the context in Added state and - here comes relationship span into play now - also fix the navigation properties in the object graph.
Another situation where relationship span also acts with POCOs is when you load objects into the context.
For example: If you have a Blog with id = x and a Post with id = y which belongs to this Blog in the database then this code ...
var blog = context.Blogs.Find(x); // no eager loading of the Posts collection!
var post = context.Posts.Find(y); // no eager loading of the Blog property!
would automatically build up the navigation properties in each object, so the Posts collection of the Blog will suddenly contain the post and the Blog property in Post will refer to the blog. This relationship fix-up depends on the fact that the objects are indeed loaded into the context. If you suppress this by using AsNoTracking for example ...
var blog = context.Blogs.AsNoTracking().Where(b => b.Id == x).Single();
var post = context.Posts.AsNoTracking().Where(p => p.Id == y).Single();
... relationship span doesn't work and the navigation properties will stay null.
A last note: Relationship span - as in the example above - only works if the assocation on at least one end has a cardinality of 0...1 (one-to-one or one-to-many associations). It never works for many-to-many associations. This was recently discussed here (with EF 4.1): EF 4.1 loading filtered child collections not working for many-to-many
I am porting an existing application from Linq to SQL to Entity Framework 4 (default code generation).
One difference I noticed between the two is that a foreign key property is not updated when resetting the object reference. Now I need to decide how to deal with this.
For example supposing you have two entity types, Company and Employee. One Company has many Employees.
In Linq To SQL, setting the company also sets the company id:
var company=new Company(ID=1);
var employee=new Employee();
Debug.Assert(employee.CompanyID==0);
employee.Company=company;
Debug.Assert(employee.CompanyID==1); //Works fine!
In Entity Framework (and without using any code template customization) this does not work:
var company=new Company(ID=1);
var employee=new Employee();
Debug.Assert(employee.CompanyID==0);
employee.Company=company;
Debug.Assert(employee.CompanyID==1); //Throws, since CompanyID was not updated!
How can I make EF behave the same way as LinqToSQL? I had a look at the default code generation T4 template, but I could not figure out how to make the necessary changes. It seems like a one-liner should do the trick, but I could not figure out how to get the ID property for a given reference.
From what I can see in the default T4 template, the foreign key properties of entities are not directly linked to the entity reference associated with the key.
Theres a couples to approach to your issue regarding migration from Linq to SQL to EF4. One of them would be to register to the AssociationChanged event of your associations so that it updates your field automatically. In your context, one approach could be something like like this :
// Extends Employee entity
public partial class Employee
{
private void CompanyChanged(Object sender, CollectionChangeEventArgs e)
{
// Apply reactive changes; aka set CompanyID
// here
}
// Create a default constructor that registers your event handler
public Employee()
{
this.CompanyReference.AssociationChanged += CompanyChanged;
}
}
Personally, if you want to limit the maintenance required to maintain this sort of logic, I'd suggest changing your T4 template (either change it yourself or find one) so that it sets the CompanyId when Company is changed as shown previously.
Gil Fink wrote a pretty good introdution to T4 templates with EF4, and you can look up Scott Hanselman wrapped a good bunch of useful links and ressources to work with T4 templates.
On a last note, unless I'm mistaken, accessing foreign keys directly as propeties of an entity is something new from EF3.5 to 4. In 3.5, only way you could access it was through the associated entity (Employee.Company.CompanyID). I believe the feature was added in EF4 so that you didn't have to load associations (using "include") in order to get the foreign key when selecting from the data store.
Perhaps EF's take on this would be, if you got the association, go through the association to get the ID, first and foremost. But that's just speculation as I got no quotes to back it up.
[EDIT 2010-06-16]:
After a quick readthrough and analysis of the edmx xml elements, I found one called ReferentialConstraint which appears to contain foreign key fields to a specfic FK_Relation.
Heres the code snippet to modify inside a default T4 edmx template, section Write Navigation Properties. (Template_RegionNavigationProperties), around line 388 of an unmodified template. Try to ignore the horrible formatting...
<#=code.SpaceAfter(NewModifier(navProperty))#><#=Accessibility.ForProperty(navProperty)#> <#=MultiSchemaEscape(navProperty.ToEndMember.GetEntityType(), code)#> <#=code.Escape(navProperty)#>
{
<#=code.SpaceAfter(Accessibility.ForGetter(navProperty))#>get
{
return ((IEntityWithRelationships)this).RelationshipManager.GetRelatedReference<<#=MultiSchemaEscape(navProperty.ToEndMember.GetEntityType(), code)#>>("<#=navProperty.RelationshipType.FullName#>", "<#=navProperty.ToEndMember.Name#>").Value;
}
<#=code.SpaceAfter(Accessibility.ForSetter(navProperty))#>set
{
// edit begins here
if(value != null)
{
// Automatically sets the foreign key attributes according to linked entity
<#
AssociationType association = GetSourceSchemaTypes<AssociationType>().FirstOrDefault(_ => _.FullName == navProperty.RelationshipType.FullName);
foreach(var cons in association.ReferentialConstraints)
{
foreach(var metadataProperty in cons.FromProperties)
{
#>
this.<#=metadataProperty.Name#> = value.<#=metadataProperty.Name#>;
//this._<#=metadataProperty.Name#> = value._<#=metadataProperty.Name#>; // use private field to bypass the OnChanged events, property validation and the likes..
<#
}
}
#>
}
else
{
// what usually happens in Linq-to-SQL when an association is set to null
// here
}
// edit ends here
((IEntityWithRelationships)this).RelationshipManager.GetRelatedReference<<#=MultiSchemaEscape(navProperty.ToEndMember.GetEntityType(), code)#>>("<#=navProperty.RelationshipType.FullName#>", "<#=navProperty.ToEndMember.Name#>").Value = value;
}
}
I roughly tested it, but it's a given that theres some validation and such missing. Perhaps it could give you a tip towards a solution regardless.
Thanks for this solution. I've enhanced it (does not depend on specific naming conventions anymore) and encluded in a fix that also fixes an other issue with the Entity Framework template.
Check here for my solution and fixed code generation template
I am having trouble with inheritance mapping in Linq to Sql. I am using MSDN as a reference and as a basis it sounds good. However the example it gives is a single table inheritance mapping. However, I am trying to do multiple table inheritance to save on table space. Is this possible? So far I have:
[Table(Name="writing_objs")]
[InheritanceMapping(Code="T",Type=typeof(ObjectTypeA), IsDefault=true)] // Only default because a default is required
[InheritanceMapping(Code="N",Type=typeof(ObjectTypeb))]
public abstract class WritingObject
{
/* ... */
[Column(Name="obj_tp", IsDiscriminator=true)]
[StringLength(1)]
public string ObjectType { get; set; }
}
I then have the different object types defined like so:
[Table(Name="obj_type_a")]
public class ObjectTypeA: WritingObject
{
/* Object Type A fields */
}
The issue seems to be that I am defining a table attribute in the 2nd type, as I get the following exception:
The inheritance subtype 'ObjectTypeA' is also declared as a root type.
Is it possible to keep these fields in separate tables with Linq to Sql or am I going to have to consolidate them all into a single table? Is it necessarily bad to have some extra fields in one table as long as there aren't too many (some object types might even be able to share some fields)?
Linq to SQL does not support multiple-table inheritance using a discriminator, even though that is the best design in many cases (it's the most normalized).
You'll have to implement it using associations instead. If you use a mapping layer that converts it to an inheritance-based domain model, it will be easier to manage at higher layers.
Well I know this problem has already been resolved, but as I just encountered the same issue, I'd like to share what I did :
Just remove the [Table] attribute from your inherited classes. And it's quite logical, because we define in the generic classes a way to store all subtypes (with the discriminatory attrbute).
Maybe this will help someone in the future.