Oracle Coherence - retrieving specific Member using Key - oracle-coherence

I have used Partitioned scheme and used data-affinity to store related data together on Cluster member.
I am only interested to execute my Invocable on a subset of entire data. Can I find specific members storing subset of data I am interested in?
Currently I do this: partitionedService.getOwnershipEnabledMembers() which gets me all nodes running this service in cluster.

You can use PartitionedService.getKeyOwner(Object key)

You can use an EntryProcessor and execute it against the data that you want to process, eg.
public class MyProc extends AbstractProcessor implements Serializable
{
public Object process(Entry entry)
{
System.out.println("*** processing " + entry.getKey());
}
}
Now to run that, just:
cache.invokeAll(collKeys, new MyProc());
... where "collKeys" is a collection of keys to your cache, or:
cache.invokeAll(filter, new MyProc());
... where "filter" is a query on your cache.

Related

EF Core Update with List

To make updates to a record of SQL Server using Entity Framework Core, I query the record I need to update, make changes to the object and then call .SaveChanges(). This works nice and clean.
For example:
var emp = _context.Employee.FirstOrDefault(item => item.IdEmployee == Data.IdEmployee);
emp.IdPosition = Data.IdPosition;
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
But is there a standard method if I want to update multiple records?
My first approach was using a list passing it to the controller, but then I would need to go through that list and save changes every time, never really finished this option as I regarded it as not optimal.
For now what I do is instead of passing a list to the controller, I pass each object to the controller using a for. (kind of the same...)
for(int i = 0; i < ObjectList.Count; i ++)
{
/* Some code */
var httpResponseObject = await MyRepositories.Post<Object>(url+"/Controller", Object);
}
And then do the same thing on the controller as before, when updating only one record, for each of the records...
I don't feel this is the best possible approach, but I haven't found another way, yet.
What would be the optimal way of doing this?
Your question has nothing to do with Blazor... However, I'm not sure I understand what is the issue. When you call the SaveChangesAsync method, all changes in your context are committed to the database. You don't have to pass one object at a time...You can pass a list of objects
Hope this helps...
Updating records in bulk using Entity Framework or other Object Relational Mapping (ORM) libraries is a common challenge because they will run an UPDATE command for every record. You could try using Entity Framework Plus, which is an extension to do bulk updates.
If updating multiple records with a single call is critical for you, I would recommend just writing a stored procedure and call if from your service. Entity Framework can also run direct queries and stored procedures.
It looks like the user makes some changes and then a save action needs to persist multiple records at the same time. You could trigger multiple AJAX calls—or, if you need, just one.
What I would do is create an endpoint—with an API controller and an action—that's specific to your needs. For example, to update the position of records in a table:
Controller:
/DataOrder
Action:
[HttpPut]
public async void Update([FromBody] DataChanges changes)
{
foreach(var change in changes)
{
var dbRecord = _context.Employees.Find(change.RecordId);
dbRecord.IdPosition = change.Position;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public class DataChanges
{
public List<DataChange> Items {get;set;}
public DataChangesWrapper()
{
Items = new List<DataChange>();
}
}
public class DataChange
{
public int RecordId {get;set;}
public int Position {get;set;}
}
The foreach statement will execute an UPDATE for every record. If you want a single database call, however, you can write a SQL query or have a stored procedure in the database and pass the data as a DataTable parameter instead.

Database independent random order in NHibernate

I have a query which uses code like:
criteria.AddOrder(
Order.Asc(
Projections.SqlFunction(
new StandardSQLFunction("NEWID"),
new NHType.GuidType(),
new IProjection[0])));
The purpose is to get a random ordering. I run this against an SQL server, but I would also like to run it against an SQLite, since we use this for testing. SQLite does not support NEWID() but has Random instead. Is it possible to write the code (or configure) such that the same query will work against both databases?
I think the way to do this is to create two custom dialects. Have each one implement a random function differently:
public class MyMsSqlDialect : MsSql2012Dialect
{
protected override void RegisterFunctions()
{
base.RegisterFunctions();
RegisterFunction("random", new StandardSQLFunction("NEWID", NHibernateUtil.Guid));
}
}
public class MySqliteDialect : SQLiteDialect
{
protected override void RegisterFunctions()
{
base.RegisterFunctions();
RegisterFunction("random", new StandardSQLFunction("random", NHibernateUtil.Guid));
}
}
Now, the following query should work fine in either database:
criteria.AddOrder(
Order.Asc(
Projections.SqlFunction("random", NHibernateUtil.Guid)));
Note that this is cheating a bit. random doesn't return a Guid in the Sqlite flavor, but since NHibernate doesn't need that information to do the ORDER BY, nothing should go wrong. I would consider calling it random_order or something to make it clear that this is only for ordering.

Access SQLite from different processes

I'm developing an application that uses SQLite as the primary data storage method. I have two processes running for my app using an alternate entry point.
I need to access the same DB from the two different processes but as we all now SQLite is not like a server DB engine, it can only be accessed once at a time.
I wanted to know if there is a way to kind of "lock" the DB when it's being accessed by other process so that if the second process tries to acces the DB at the same time, it would wait until the first process finishes and then try to access it again.
How can this issue be treated?
If you have not already, create a class that abstracts your database access out and store it in the RuntimeStore. From wherever you are going to interface with SQLite, get a reference to that class using the GUID you stored it with (RuntimeStore.get(long)) and synchronize the class however you would normally (member object lock, synchronized methods).
Do NOT just use the Wikipedia style singleton pattern as it is not a true singleton across processes on this platform.
See:
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/5.0.0api/net/rim/device/api/system/RuntimeStore.html
Sample:
class SQLManager {
private static long GUID = 0xa178d3ce564cae69L; // hash of com.stackoverflow.SQLManager
private SQLManager() {
// ctor stuff here
}
public static SQLManager getInstance() {
RuntimeStore rs = RuntimeStore.getRuntimeStore();
SQLManager instance = rs.get(GUID);
if (instance == null) {
instance = new SQLManager();
rs.put(GUID, instance);
}
return instance;
}
}
You're still using the singleton "pattern" per se, but you're storing the object instance in the RuntimeStore on first getInstance call, and subsequently pulling it form the RuntimeStore - using a GUID that you specify.

ASP.Net Entity Framework Repository & Linq

My scenario:
This is an ASP.NET 4.0 web app programmed via C#
I implement a repository pattern. My repositorys all share the same ObjectContext, which is stored in httpContext.Items. Each repository creates a new ObjectSet of type E. Heres some code from my repository:
public class Repository<E> : IRepository<E>, IDisposable
where E : class
{
private DataModelContainer _context = ContextHelper<DataModelContainer>.GetCurrentContext();
private IObjectSet<E> _objectSet;
private IObjectSet<E> objectSet
{
get
{
if (_objectSet == null)
{
_objectSet = this._context.CreateObjectSet<E>();
}
return _objectSet;
}
}
public IQueryable<E> GetQuery()
{
return objectSet;
}
Lets say I have 2 repositorys, 1 for states and 1 for countrys and want to create a linq query against both. Note that I use POCO classes with the entity framework. State and Country are 2 of these POCO classes.
Repository stateRepo = new Repository<State>();
Repository countryRepo = new Repository<Country>();
IEnumerable<State> states = (from s in _stateRepo.GetQuery()
join c in _countryRepo.GetQuery() on s.countryID equals c.countryID
select s).ToList();
Debug.WriteLine(states.First().Country.country)
essentially, I want to retrieve the state and the related country entity. The query only returns the state data... and I get a null argument exception on the Debug.WriteLine
LazyLoading is disabled in my .edmx... thats the way I want it.
You're doing a join without retrieving anything from it. There are multiple solutions to your problem:
Use Include to load the dependent entities: from s in ((ObjectSet<State>) _stateRepo.GetQuery).Include("Country"). The problem with this approach is that you should expose the ObjectSet directly rather than as a IQueryable if you want to avoid casting.
Use context.LoadProperty(states.First(), s => s.Country) to explicitly load the Country from the database for a given state.
Select both entities in the query: from s in ... join c ... select new { s, c }. You won't be able to access directly the state's Country property but you have it in the anonymous type.
Enable lazy loading.
Your repository implementation is very similar to mine, especially the way you are storing the ObjectContext. It works fine for me, so I don't think it's a conceptual problem.
Try using a static objectcontext (no wrapper) just to see if that fixes the problem. Perhaps there is a bug in your ContextHelper which causes your context to get disposed and recreated.

IRepository confusion on objects returned

I have some e-commerce code that I use often that uses Linq To SQL for saving orders to the database. I want to remove the tightly coupled Linq to SQL bit and pass in an IRepository instead but I am still a little confused on things.
Say I have a GetCustomer() method on my ICustomerRepository that returns a Customer object.
Do I need it to really return an ICustomer object that gets passed back from that method so if I switch from Linq To SQL to say SubSonic it's not a problem?
I believe I do, if that is the case is there a way in Linq To SQL to easily convert my Linq To SQL Customer object to my ICustomer object like SubSonics ExecuteSingle(Of ) method?
If you want your Customer class to be a plain object with no attachment to LINQ, then you will most likely need to write a mapper method to convert your LINQ-based Customer object to your plain Customer domain object. LINQ to SQL does not have such functionality built-in.
I have begun to wrap my mapping methods in an extension method for readability, and it really helps to keep the Repository code simple. For instance, an example CustomerRepository method my look like:
public Customer GetById(int id)
{
return dataContext.LINQCustomers.Where(c => c.Id == id)
.Single()
.ToDomainObject();
}
and the ToDomainObject() method is defined in an extension method like:
public static class ObjectMapper
{
public static Customer ToDomainObject(this Customer linqObject)
{
var domainObject = null
if (linqObject != null)
{
domainObject = new Customer
{
Id = linqObject.Id,
FirstName = linqObject.FirstName,
LastName = linqObject.LastName
}
}
return domainObject;
}
}
or something similar. You can do the same to convert your domain object back to a LINQ object to pass back into your repository for persistence.
You can have it return a Customer as long as Customer is a plain old .NET object, and not some db-generated entity. Your Customer domain object should have no knowledge about how (or if) it might be persisted to a database, and this is what should be returned from your repository. In your repository you might have some mapping code - this is quite common - that maps from [however you get the data back from its storage location] to your domain object. If you're using Linq-to-sql then this mapping would be from the Linq-To-Sql generated Customer table (and perhaps other tables - your Customer domain object likely won't map 1:1 to a particular table in the database) to your Customer domain object, which would live in a different namespace (and most likely, assembly).
There is no need to make it an ICustomer at all. A repository acts in a way as to make it look as though your persistent instances are in memory.
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
Customer GetByID(int id);
IEnumerable<Customer> GetByName(string name);
Customer GetByVatCode(string vatCode);
}
Some people would additionally include methods such as
void Add(Customer newCustomer);
void Delete(Customer deleted);
void Update(Customer modified);
The latter method implementations would most likely just update a unit of work.
The concept though is that these are just common ways of asking for Customer instances, the repository acts as a way of asking for them without defining how to ask for them.

Resources