I'm using Objectify and have a base entity that all others descend from. This base entity has an non-persisted updated flag that is set by descendant classes when there is a change to an object property value that needs to be saved. I do this to prevent needless writes to the datastore when syncing data with clients.
The base entity looks like this
#Cache
public abstract class WordBuzzEntity {
#Ignore
private boolean updated = false;
public boolean isUpdated() {
return updated;
}
public void setUpdated() {
updated = true;
}
public void save(boolean async) {
if (!updated)
return;
if (async)
ofy().save().entity(this);
else
ofy().save().entity(this).now();
}
}
I noticed when loading users with
User user = ofy().load().type(User.class).id(LoginTest.TEST_ID).now();
That the updated flag was sometimes set to true at the point of load.
Is this because of the Objectify session cache or memcache? Are ignored properties cached in this instance when an object is reloaded?
Adding a line to set updated back to false at the point of save resolves my issue, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
The Objectify session cache stores instances of objects, therefore ignored fields are not actually ignored when an item is loaded from the cache as it just pulls up the last instance rather than creating a new one.
Related
can someone please explain me the code written below
public IList<GetProductPrice> CurrentPage
{
get { return ViewState["CurrentPage"] as List<GetProductPrice>; }
set { ViewState["CurrentPage"] = value; }
}
It is called a Property. They generate a getter and setter functions when compiled:
List<GetProductPrice> GetCurrentPage(){
return ViewState["CurrentPage"] as List<GetProductPrice>;
}
void SetCurrentPage(List<GetProductPrice> value) {
ViewState["CurrentPage"] = value;
}
//i think its actual get_.. but it doesn't matter for the example
So its generates ease of use getter setters. which you can just call by using:
var test = CurrentPage; //compiled to var test = GetCurrenctPage();
CurrentPage = test; //compiled to SetCurrentPage(test);
If you leave the getter and setter empty like this:
public int CurrentPage
{
get;
set;
}
it will also generate a backing field on the class where it stores the data:
private int _currentPage;
public GetCurrentPage(){ return _currentPage }
public SetCurrentPage(int value) { _currentPage = value }
Why do we do this?
Using getters and setters is a very old best practise from java (where ide's would have an option to generate them). But this would lead to a lot of boilerplate code!
In C# they try to counter this by adding these properties. But why do we need getters and setters? For example if you want to be notified when a value changes (to mark the classes it self as dirty). I think entity framework uses it to track if a model is changed otherwise it wont do a db update call. There are also other usefull tools that inject code in properties on compile time. to add extra functionality.
How not to use it:
using properties to return HttpContext.Current Is a dangerous one because you secretly depend on the HttpContext so try not to do this at any time!
Generally its also bad practise to use it when the code inside the get or set is very heavy (very instensive). Its bad practise because someone else using the code might think he is just setting a property/field while actually some very heavy code is executed. its best practice to make a special function for this instead and private the getter/setter:
public int Property {get; private set; }
public SetProperty(int value){
//intensive code here:
Property = value;
}
This property is letting the consumer of the property to use it like Local collection without referring the ViewState in the code. It will make the code simple and easy to use.
get { return ViewState["CurrentPage"] as List<GetProductPrice>; }
Here the ViewState object ViewState["CurrentPage"] is converted to list of GetProductPrice
set { ViewState["CurrentPage"] = value; }
Here the List is assigned to ViewState["CurrentPage"]
This code will only work in a controller, where ViewState is a property. This CurrentPage property provides a statically-typed way to access a certain ViewState item through that property.
So instead of sprinkling ViewState["CurrentPage"] as List<GetProductPrice> all over your controller code where you want to access the "current page", you can now simply use the CurrentPage property.
Of course "current page" is a term made up by the developer who chose to name things like this, I don't see how a List<GetProductPrice> has a relation to the "current page".
I'm trying to work out how to complete my implementation of the Repository pattern in an ASP.NET web application.
At the moment, I have a repository interface per domain class defining methods for e.g. loading and saving instances of that class.
Each repository interface is implemented by a class which does the NHibernate stuff. Castle Windsor sorts out the DI of the class into the interface according to web.config. An example of an implemented class is provided below:
public class StoredWillRepository : IStoredWillRepository
{
public StoredWill Load(int id)
{
StoredWill storedWill;
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
storedWill = session.Load<StoredWill>(id);
NHibernateUtil.Initialize(storedWill);
}
return storedWill;
}
public void Save(StoredWill storedWill)
{
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
using (ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction())
{
session.SaveOrUpdate(storedWill);
transaction.Commit();
}
}
}
}
As pointed out in a previous thread, the repository class needs to accept an unit of work container (i.e. ISession) rather than instantiating it in every method.
I anticipate that the unit of work container will be created by each aspx page when needed (for example, in a property).
How do I then specify that this unit of work container instance is to be passed into the constructor of StoredWillRepository when Windsor is creating it for me?
Or is this pattern completely wrong?
Thanks again for your advice.
David
I have a persistence framework built on top of NHibernate that is used in a few Web apps. It hides the NH implementation behind an IRepository and IRepository<T> interface, with the concrete instances provided by Unity (thus I could in theory swap out NHibernate for, say, Entity Framework fairly easily).
Since Unity doesn't (or at least the version I'm using doesn't) support the passing in of constructor parameters other than those that are dependency injections themselves, passing in an extant NH ISession isn't possible; but I do want all objects in the UOW to share the same ISession.
I solve this by having a controlling repository class that manages access to the ISession on a per-thread basis:
public static ISession Session
{
get
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
// if a cached session exists, we'll use it
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
return (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[NHibernateRepository.SESSION_KEY];
}
else
{
// must create a new session - note we're not caching the new session here... that's the job of
// BeginUnitOfWork().
return _factory.OpenSession(new NHibernateInterceptor());
}
}
}
}
In this example, PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items accesses an IList<object> that is stored either ThreadStatic if not in a Web context, or within HttpContext.Current.Items if it is in a Web context (to avoid thread-pool problems). The first call to the property instantiates the ISession from the stored factory instance, subsequent calls just retrieve it from storage. The locking will slow things down slightly but not as much as just locking an appdomain-scoped static ISession instance.
I then have BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork methods to take care of the UOW - I have specifically disallowed nested UOWs because frankly they were a pain to manage.
public void BeginUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
EndUnitOfWork();
ISession session = Session;
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Add(SESSION_KEY, session);
}
}
public void EndUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
ISession session = (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[SESSION_KEY];
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Remove(SESSION_KEY);
session.Flush();
session.Dispose();
}
}
}
Finally, a pair of methods provide access to the domain-type-specific repositories:
public IRepository<T> For<T>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<IRepository<T>>();
}
public TRepository For<T, TRepository>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
where TRepository : IRepository<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<TRepository>();
}
(Here, PersistentObject<T> is a base class providing ID and Equals support.)
Access to a given repository is thus in the pattern
NHibernateRepository.For<MyDomainType>().Save();
This is then facaded over such that you can use
MyDomainType.Repository.Save();
Where a given type has a specialised repository (ie needs more than it can get from IRepository<T>) then I create an interface deriving from IRepository<T>, an extending implementation inheriting from my IRepository<T> implementation, and in the domain type itself I override the static Repository property using new
new public static IUserRepository Repository
{
get
{
return MyApplication.Repository.For<User, IUserRepository>();
}
}
(MyApplication [which is called something less noddy in the real product] is a facade class which takes care of supplying the Repository instance via Unity so you have no dependency on the specific NHibernate repository implementation within your domain classes.)
This gives me full pluggability via Unity for the repository implementation, easy access to the repository in code without jumping through hoops, and transparent, per-thread ISession management.
There's lots more code than just what's above (and I've simplified the example code a great deal), but you get the general idea.
MyApplication.Repository.BeginUnitOfWork();
User user = User.Repository.FindByEmail("wibble#wobble.com");
user.FirstName = "Joe"; // change something
user.LastName = "Bloggs";
// you *can* call User.Repository.Save(user), but you don't need to, because...
MyApplication.Repository.EndUnitOfWork();
// ...causes session flush which saves the changes automatically
In my Web app, I have session-per-request, so BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork get called in BeginRequest and EndRequest respectively.
I have a pretty similar structure to yours, and here's how I solve your question:
1) To specify my container on each method, I have a separate class ("SessionManager") which I then invoke via a static property. By doing so, here's an example using my Save implementation:
private static ISession NHibernateSession
{
get { return SessionManager.Instance.GetSession(); }
}
public T Save(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
ValidateEntityValues(entity);
NHibernateSession.Save(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
2) My container is not created on each ASPX page. I instantiate all of my NHibernate goodness on the global.asax page.
** A few more things spring up **
3) You don't need to have a helper to instantiate the Load. You might as well use Get instead of Load. More information # Difference between Load and Get.
4) Using your current code, you would have to repeat pretty much the same code for each domain object you need (StoredWillRepository, PersonRepository, CategoryRepository, etc..?), which seems like a drag. You could very well use a generic class to operate over NHibernate, like:
public class Dao<T> : IDao<T>
{
public T SaveOrUpdate(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
NHibernateSession.SaveOrUpdate(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
}
In my implementation, I could then use something like:
Service<StoredWill>.Instance.SaveOrUpdate(will);
Technically, the answer to my question is to use the overload of container.Resolve which allows you to specify the constructor argument as an anonymous type:
IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = [Code to get unit of work];
_storedWillRepository = container.Resolve<IStoredWillRepository>(new { unitOfWork = unitOfWork });
But let's face it, the answers provided by everyone else have been much more informative.
If i have an item that already exists in my ASP.NET Cache ... and I just wish to update the value of that cached item .. not the Absolute Expiry value, or Cache Dependencies, etc.. nothing else BUT the value ... can I use Cache.Insert?
If not, is there anyway I can retrieve all those values for the cached item .. and then re-use them when I do the Cache.Insert?
Cheers :)
You can create functions to handle adding fresh value or updating the existing one as follows:
private static Cache cachingControl;
public void UpdateToCache(object key, object updateValue)
{
try
{
if (key != null)
{
cachingControl.Remove(key);
AddToCache(key, updateValue);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//**ToDo[Logging]** Code for logging
}
}
public void AddToCache(object key, object saveValue)
{
try
{
if (key != null)
{
cachingControl.Insert(key, saveValue,null,System.Web.Caching.Cache.NoAbsoluteExpiration,TimeSpan.FromMinutes(30));
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//**ToDo[Logging]** Code for logging
}
}
Here you can use AddToCache function to insert new values and UpdateToCache function to update new values to existing key.(This basically involves in removing the existing key and adding it again with updated values.)
There is no direct way to update the existing values.
The Cache.Insert overload that takes just the key and object will simply use default values for the caching behaviour.
From MSDN:
Inserts an item into the Cache object with a cache key to reference its location, using default values provided by the CacheItemPriority enumeration.
You'd be best to create your own helper class to store the values for you as I don't believe there's a way to get at the cached item's behavioural properties.
I want a ASP.NET cache item to be recycled when a specific file is touched, but the following code is not working:
HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(
"Key",
SomeObject,
new CacheDependency(Server.MapPath("SomeFile.txt")),
DateTime.MaxValue,
TimeSpan.Zero,
CacheItemPriority.High,
null);
"SomeFile.txt" does not seem to be checked when I'm hitting the cache, and modifying it does not cause this item to be invalidated.
What am I doing wrong?
Problem Solved:
This was a unique and interesting problem, so I'm going to document the cause and solution here as an Answer, for future searchers.
Something I left out in my question was that this cache insertion was happening in a service class implementing the singleton pattern.
In a nutshell:
public class Service
{
private static readonly Service _Instance = new Service();
static Service () { }
private Service () { }
public static Service Instance
{
get { return _Instance; }
}
// The expensive data that this service exposes
private someObject _data = null;
public someObject Data
{
get
{
if (_data == null)
loadData();
return _data;
}
}
private void loadData()
{
_data = GetFromCache();
if (_data == null)
{
// Get the data from our datasource
_data = ExpensiveDataSourceGet();
// Insert into Cache
HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(etc);
}
}
}
It may be obvious to some, but the culprit here is lazy loading within the singleton pattern. I was so caught up thinking that the cache wasn't being invalidated, that I forgot that the state of the singleton would be persisted for as long as the worker process was alive.
Cache.Insert has an overload that allows you to specify a event handler for when the cache item is removed, my first test was to create a dummy handler and set a breakpoint within it. Once I saw that the cache was being cleared, I realized that "_data" was not being reset to null, so the next request to the singleton loaded the lazy loaded value.
In a sense, I was double caching, though the singleton cache was very short lived, but long enough to be annoying.
The solution?
HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(
"Key",
SomeObject,
new CacheDependency(Server.MapPath("SomeFile.txt")),
DateTime.MaxValue,
TimeSpan.Zero,
CacheItemPriority.High,
delegate(string key, object value, CacheItemRemovedReason reason)
{
_data = null;
}
);
When the cache is cleared, the state within the singleton must also be cleared...problem solved.
Lesson learned here? Don't put state in a singleton.
Is ASP.NET running under an account with the proper permissions for the file specified in the CacheDependency? If not, then this might be one reason why the CacheDependency is not working properly.
I think you'll need to specify a path:
var d = new CacheDependency(Server.MapPath("SomeFile.txt"));
Prepend with ~\App_Data as needed.
Your code looks fine to me. However, beyond this snippet, anything could be going on.
Are you re-inserting on every postback by any chance?
Try making your cache dependency a class field, and checking it on every postback. Modify the file in between and see if it ever registers as "Changed". e.g.:
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.Page
{
CacheDependency dep;
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!IsPostBack)
{
dep = new CacheDependency(Server.MapPath("SomeFile.txt"));
HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(
"Key",
new Object(),
dep,
DateTime.MaxValue,
TimeSpan.Zero, CacheItemPriority.High, null);
}
if (dep.HasChanged)
Response.Write("changed!");
else
Response.Write("no change :("); }}
The only way I am able to reproduce this behavior is if the path provided to the constructor of CacheDependency does not exist. The CacheDependency will not throw an exception if the path doesn't exist, so it can be a little misleading.
I have a very strange problem: NHibernate crashes when being called from a web user control.
I am working on a ASP.Net (2.0) web page which uses NHibernate to access a database.
And I have a simple factory class to access a column CurrentStepNumber in the table ProjectInfo:
public class ProjectEntity
{
private int? _currentStepNumber;
public virtual int? CurrentStepNumber
{
get { return _currentStepNumber; }
set { _currentStepNumber = value; }
}
public static ProjectWizardEntity GetById(int id, bool shouldLock)
{
return RepositoryFactory.ProjectWizardRepository.GetById(id, shouldLock);
}
public static ProjectWizardEntity GetById(int id)
{
return GetById(id, false);
}
public virtual void Save()
{
RepositoryFactory.ProjectWizardRepository.Save(this);
}
public virtual void SaveOrUpdate()
{
RepositoryFactory.ProjectWizardRepository.SaveOrUpdate(this);
}
}
This class is accessed via a proxy class, so that everytime a new value is assigned it is flushed to the database:
public class DBHelper
{
ProjectEntity _projectEntity;
ProjectEntity GetProjectEntity()
{
if (_projectEntity == null)
_projectEntity = //get or create a new one;
return _projectEntity ;
}
public int? CurrentStepNumber
{
get
{
return (CurrentProjectId > 0) ? CurrentProjectWizardEntity.CurrentStepNumber : 0;
}
set
{
if (CurrentProjectId > 0)
{
CurrentProjectWizardEntity.CurrentStepNumber = value;
CurrentProjectWizardEntity.SaveOrUpdate();
}
}
}
}
Now the problem:
When I access CurrentStepNumber from the test.aspx page, everything works perfectly
When I read this field from the web user control (test.ascx) which is used on test.aspx page it is still OK
However when I try to assign a value to CurrentStepNumber in the code behind the control (test.ascx) I always get an exception:
NHibernate.NonUniqueObjectException: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session
Actually SaveOrUpdate method of the NHibernate Repository throws the exception.
I could not figure out what could be the problem here, so any help will be appreciated.
I think that You have a session management problem here. How is RepositoryFactory.ProjectWizardRepository.GetById creating and possibly disposing the NHibernate session? Does it create and then close a session?
It seems that DBHelper.GetProjectEntity() is creating or loading a ProjectEntity. Later, when CurrentStepNumber's setter i called, You insert or update the object to the database.
The problem is that when DBHelper.GetProjectEntity() is loading an existing object and later closing the session after it has been loaded but keep the object around, we are entering deep water. When the object is later updated, You set a new value for CurrentStepNumber and send the object to NHibernate to save. The problem here is that the object is not associated with the new session that is created and closed during saving. Nhibernate then gets confused since a new object is discovered that is not loaded from current session but it has an id of an existing object.
For a solution, Google for "NHibernate asp.net session management" and You will get a number of good hits about how to use the ASP.NET request cycle as a unit of work.