It is possible to enable a cache that start ad the beginning of the request and ends at the end of the request ??
For some tables it will useful to enable a cache that not select the same record more that one time.
For example when I render a a partial more that one time the SELECT inside the partial are unnecessary.
Assume this snippet:
#foreach(var row in orders)
{
#{Html.RenderPartial("Order");}
}
And the partial Order is:
<div>
#session.Query<Langs>.SingleOrDefault(el => el.Id == "EN').Description
</div>
<div>
#Model.OrderID
</div>
It is possible to enable a cache that cache the "Langs" table only in the current session ?
Without cache I have N (Count of Orders) SELECT per request, otherwise with request cache I will have 1 SELECT per request.
Thank You!
You should not be executing any database queries from within any view such as the partial you mentioned. This will almost always lead to a SELECT N+1 scenario.
Follow an MVC pattern and do not mix the concerns. Any database queries should be initiated from a repository layer, then populate a model object that represents what data that the view needs, then pass that model to the view.
With programming, anything is possible and there are always a million ways to do the same thing but following best practices and separation of concerns will save you from yourself and help you to build efficient, extendable and maintainable applications.
To reiterate, whatever data your view needs access to, do all of that querying on the Controller-side of the MVC pattern. Doing it any other way is mixing concerns and leads to situations such as the one you are encountering.
You have at least 2 posiblities:
cache your query
enable caching on the object Langs mapping
Query:
#session.Query<Langs>.SetCacheable(true).SingleOrDefault(el => el.Id == "EN').Description
And add the key hibernate.cache.use_query_cache = true to the configuration
Related
this is one of the few moments I couldn't find the same question that I have at this place so I'm trying to describe my problem and hope to get some help an ideas!
Let's say...
I want to design a RESTful API for a domain model, that might have entities/resources like the following:
class Product
{
String id;
String name;
Price price;
Set<Tag> tags;
}
class Price
{
String id;
String currency;
float amount;
}
class Tag
{
String id;
String name;
}
The API might look like:
GET /products
GET /products/<product-id>
PUT /prices/<price-id>?currency=EUR&amount=12.34
PATCH /products/<product-id>?name=updateOnlyName
When it comes to updating references:
PATCH /products/<product-id>?price=<price-id>
PATCH /products/<product-id>?price=
may set the Products' Price-reference to another existing Price, or delete this reference.
But how can I add a new reference of an existing Tag to a Product?
If I wanted to store that reference in a relational database, I needed a relationship table 'products_tags' for that many-to-many-relationship, which brings us to a clear solution:
POST /product_tags [product: <product-id>, tag: <tag-id>]
But a document-based NoSQL database (like MongoDB) could store this as a one-to-many-relationship for each Product, so I don't need to model a 'new resource' that has to be created to save a relationship.
But
POST /products/<product-id>/tags/ [name: ...]
creates a new Tag (in a Product),
PUT /products/<product-id>/tags/<tag-id>?name=
creates a new Tag with <tag-id> or replaces an existing
Tag with the same id (in a Product),
PATCH /products/<product-id>?tags=<tag-id>
sets the Tag-list and doesn't add a new Tag, and
PATCH /products/<product-id>/tags/<tag-id>?name=...
sets a certain attribute of a Tag.
So I might want to say something link this:
ATTACH /products/<product-id>?tags=<tag-id>
ATTACH /products/<product-id>/tags?tag=<tag-id>
So the point is:
I don't want to create a new resource,
I don't want to set the attribute of a resource, but
I want to ADD a resource to another resources attribute, which is a set. ^^
Since everything is about resources, one could say:
I want to ATTACH a resource to another.
My question: Which Method is the right one and how should the URL look like?
Your REST is an application state driver, not aimed to be reflection of your entity relationships.
As such, there's no 'if this was the case in the db' in REST. That said, you have pretty good URIs.
You talk about IDs. What is a tag? Isn't a tag a simple string? Why does it have an id? Why isn't its id its namestring?
Why not have PUT /products/<product-id>/tags/tag_name=?
PUT is idempotent, so you are basically asserting the existance of a tag for the product referred to by product-id. If you send this request multiple times, you'd get 201 Created the first time and 200 OK the next time.
If you are building a simple system with a single concurrent user running on a single web server with no concurrency in requests, you may stop reading now
If someone in between goes and deletes that tag, your next put request would re-create the tag. Is this what you want?
With optimistic concurrency control, you would pass along the ETag a of the document everytime, and return 409 Conflict if you have a newer version b on the server and the diff, a..b cannot be reconciled. In the case of tags, you are just using PUT and DELETE verbs; so you wouldn't have to diff/look at reconciliation.
If you are building a moderately advanced concurrent system, with first-writer-wins semantics, running on a single sever, you can stop reading now
That said, I don't think you have considered your transactional boundaries. What are you modifying? A resource? No, you are modifying value objects of the product resource; its tags. So then, according to your model of resources, you should be using PATCH. Do you care about concurrency? Well, then you have much more to think about with regards to PATCH:
How do you represent the diff of a hierarchial JSON object?
How do you know what PATCH requests that conflict in a semantic way - i.e. we may not care about DELETEs on Tags, but two other properties might interact semantically.
The RFC for HTTP PATCH says this:
With PATCH, however, the enclosed entity contains a set of
instructions describing how a resource currently residing on the
origin server should be modified to produce a new version. The PATCH
method affects the resource identified by the Request-URI, and it also
MAY have side effects on other resources; i.e., new resources may be
created, or existing ones modified, by the application of a PATCH.
PATCH is neither safe nor idempotent as defined by [RFC2616], Section
9.1.
I'm probably going to stop putting strange ideas in your head now. Comment if you want me to continue down this path a bit longer ;). Suffice to say that there are many more considerations that can be done.
A problem appears when two users are logged on to our service system at the same time and looking at the service list gridview. If user1 does a search to filter the gridview and user2 happens to click to another page user2 sees the results from the search performed by user1. That means one company can see another company's data.
It's an ASP.NET application that was developed in house with C#/ASP.NET 3.5. The data is stored in a SQL 2000 database and relies very heavily on stored procedures to update, select, and delete data. There are multiple user types that are restricted to what data they can see. For example, we have a company use that can only see data relavant to that company.
From what I've seen, the security is handled through If statements in the front end. Example, if userlevel = 1 then do this, if userlevel = 2 do this. These statments are used to show or hide columns in a grid, run queries to return data, and any other restrictions needed. For a company user the code behind gets the companyid assigned to the user and uses that in a query to return the results of all the data associated with that companyid (services, ships, etc).
Any recommendations for fixing this will be highly appreciated.
It's hard to say without seeing any implementation details, but on the surface it appears that there maybe some company level caching. Check for OutputCache settings, DataSource caching, explicit caching with Page.Cache, etc.
This article is a little dated, but at a glance it looks like most information is still relevant in ASP.NET 4.0.
ASP.NET Caching: Techniques and Best Practices
In addition to jrummerll's answer, check the Data Acces Layer of our app and make sure that you don't have any static variables defined. Having a static variable defined could cause this sort of issue too, since 2 contending requests may overwrite the value of the CompanyID, for example.
You basic model should work. What you've told us is not enough to diagnose the problem. But, I've got a few guesses. Most likely your code is confusing UserID or CompanyID values.
Are you mistakenly storing the CompanyID in the Cache, rather than the session?
Is the CompanyID stored in a static variable? A common (and disastrous!) pitfall in web applications is that a value stored in a static variable will remain the same for all users! In general, don't use static variables in asp.net apps.
Maybe your db caching or output caching doesn't vary properly by session or other variables. So, a 2nd user will see what was created for the previous user. Stop any caching that's happening and see if that fixes it, but debug from there.
Other variations on the above themes: maybe the query is stored in a static variable. Maybe these user-related values are stored in the cache or db, but the key for that record (UserID?) is stored in a static variable?
You can put that if statements in a thread. Threading provides you the option that only 1 user can access the application or gridview in your case.
See this link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173179.aspx
Here is some sample code that is throughout the entire application that is used for filtering results. What is the best way to fix this so that when one user logs on, the other user doesn't see those results?
protected void PopulategvServiceRequestListing(string _whereclause)
{
_dsGlobalDatasource = new TelemarServiceRequestListing().GetServiceRequestListingDatasource(_whereclause);
if(_dsGlobalDatasource.Tables[0].Rows.Count!=0)
{
gv_ServiceRequest.DataSource = _dsGlobalDatasource;
gv_ServiceRequest.DataBind();
}
else
{
gv_ServiceRequest.DataSource=new TelemarServiceRequestListing().DummyDataset();
gv_ServiceRequest.DataBind();
gv_ServiceRequest.Rows[0].Visible = false;
gv_ServiceRequest.HeaderStyle.Font.Bold = true;
}
}
In the controllers generated by Visual Studio, as well as the sample application (ContosoUniversity), the Index action always has something like
var departments = db.Departments.Include(d => d.Administrator);
What's the difference between that and
var departments = db.Departments;
First I suspected that the first one (with Include) enables the view to retrieve department.Administrator. But the second one (without Include) seems to be able to do that as well.
The Include tells Entity Framework work to eagerly load the Administrator for each Department in the results. In this case, Entity Framework can use a SQL join to grab the data from both tables in a single request.
The code will still work without the Include, but the first time you access a Department's Administrator, EF will need to hit the database to load it (since it wasn't pre-loaded). Loading data on demand (lazily) is a nice feature but it can be a serious performance problem (known as an N+1 problem). Especially if you are accessing the Administrator for each Department (for example, in a loop) - instead of one database call, you will end up with many!
In first case (with Include) when you write department.Administrator servers the object from memory that has been eagerly loaded due to Include method. In the second case, an sql statement will be executed to fetch the Administrator record from the db for each department object.
See the "Lazy, Eager, and Explicit Loading of Related Data" section in this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/entity-framework/tutorials/reading-related-data-with-the-entity-framework-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application
var departments = db.Departments;
This will retrieves the aggregate domains only if LazyLoadingEnabled is enabled & MultipleActiveResultSets is set to true in connection string.
I have an ASP.NET c# project.
I have to pass a list of values (id numbers such as "23,4455,21,2,765,...) from one form to another. Since QueryString is not possible because the list could be long, which is the best way to do it?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks for all your answers, you are helping a lot !!!
I decided to do this:
On the first form:
List lRecipients = new List();
.....
Session["Recipients"] = lRecipients;
On the final form:
List lRecipients = (List)Session["Recipients"];
Session.Remove("Recipients");
You could use Session collection.
In the first page, use:
List<int> listOfInts = new List<int>();
...
Session["someKey"] = listOfInts
And in the second page, retrieve it like this:
List<int> listOfInts = Session["someKey"] as List<int>;
If your using asp.net webforms you can put it into a session variable to pass stuff from page to page. You've got to be concise of the potential performance issues of putting lots of stuff into session mind.
Session["ListOfStff"] = "15,25,44.etc";
There are any number of ways to pass this data. Which you choose will depend on your environment.
Session state is useful, but is constrained by the number of concurrent users on the system and the amount of available memory on the server. Consider this when deciding whether or not to use Session state. If you do choose session state for this operation, be sure to remove the data when you're done processing the request.
You could use a hidden input field, with runat="server" applied to it. This will make its data available server-side, and it will only last for the duration of the request. The pros of this technique are that it's accessible to both the server code and the client-side JavaScript. However, it also means that the size of your request is increased, and it may take more work to get the data where you want it (and back out).
Depending on how much data's involved, you could implement a web service to serialize the data to a temporary storage medium (say, a database table), and get back a "request handle." Then, you could pass the request handle on the query string to the next form and it could use the "handle" to fetch the data from your medium.
There are all kinds of different ways to deal with this scenario, but the best choice will depend on your environment, time to develop, and costs.
For Asp.NET MVC you can use ViewData.
ViewData["ID"] = "";
I will try to be as concise as possible. I'm using Flex/Hibernate technologies for my app. I also use Cairngorm micro-architecture for Flex. Because i'm beginner, i have probably misunderstand something about Caringorm's ModelLocator purpose. I have following problem...
Suppose that we have next data model:
USER ----------------> TOPIC -------------> COMMENT
1 M 1 M
User can start many topics, topics can have many comments etc. It is pretty simple model, just for example. In hibernate, i use EAGER fetching strategy for unidirectional USER->TOPIC and TOPIC->COMMENT relations(here is no question about best practices etc, this is just example of problem).
My ModelLocator looks like this:
...
public class ModelLocator ....
{
//private instance, private constructor, getInstance() etc...
...
//app state
public var users:ArrayCollection;
public var selectedUser:UserVO;
public var selectedTopic:TopicVO;
}
Because i use eager fetching, i can 'walk' through all object graph on my Flex client without hitting the database. This is ok as long as i don't need to insert, update, or delete some of the domain instances. But when that comes, problems with synchronization arise.
For example, if i want to show details about some user from some UserListView, when user(actor) select that user in list, i will take selected index in UserList, get element from users ArrayCollection in ModelLocator at selected index and show details about selected user.
When i want to insert new User, ok, I will save that user in database and in IResponder result method i will add that user in ModelLocator.users ArrayCollection.
But, when i want to add new topic for some user, if i still want to use convenience of EAGER fetching, i need to reload user list again... And to add topic to selected user... And if user is in some other location(indirectly), i need to insert topic there also.
Update is even worst. In that case i need to write even some logic...
My question: is this good way of using ModelLocator in Cairngorm? It seems to me that, because of mentioned, EAGER fetching is somehow pointless. In case of using EAGER fetching, synchronization on Flex client can become big problem. Should I always hit database in order to manipulate with my domain model?
EDIT:
It seems that i didn't make myself clear enough. Excuse me for that.
Ok, i use Spring in technology stack also and DTO(DVO) pattern with flex/spring (de)serializer, but i just wanted to stay out of that because i'm trying to point out how do you stay synchronized with database state in your flex app. I don't even mention multi-user scenario and poling/pushing topic which is, maybe, my solution because i use standard request-response mechanism. I didn't provide some concrete code, because this seems conceptual problem for me, and i use standard Cairngorm terms in order to explain pseudo-names which i use for class names, var names etc.
I'll try to 'simplify' again: you have flex client for administration of above mentioned domain(CRUD for each of domain classes), you have ListOfUsersView(shows list of users with basic infos about them), UserDetailsView(shows user details and list of user topics with delete option for each of topic), InsertNewUserTopicView(form to insert new topic) etc.
Each of view which displays some infos is synchronized with ModelLocator state variables, for example:
ListOfUsersView ------binded to------> users:ArrayCollection in ModelLocator
UserDetailsView ------binded to------> selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator
etc.
View state transition look like this:
ListOfUsersView----detailsClick---->UserDetailsView---insertTopic--->InsertTopicView
So when i click on "Details" button in ListOfUsersView, in my logic, i get index of selected row in ListOfUsers, after that i take UserVO object from users:ArrayCollection in ModelLocator at mentioned index, after that i set that UserVO object as selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator and after that i change view state to UserDetailsView(it shows user details and selectedUser.topics) which is synchronized with selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator.
Now, i click "Insert new topic" button on UserDetailsView which results in InsertTopicView form. I enter some data, click "Save topic"(after successful save, UserDetailsView is shown again) and problem arise.
Because of my EAGER-ly fetched objects, i didn't hit the database in mentioned transitions and because of that there are two places for which i need to be concerned when insert new topic for selected user: one is instance of selectedUser object in users:ArrayCollection (because my logic select users from that collection and shows them in UserDetailsView), and second is selectedUser:UserVO(in order to sync UserDetailsView which comes after successfull save operation).
So, again my question arises... Should i hit database in every transition, should i reload users:ArrayCollection and selectedUser:UserVO after save in order to synchronize database state with flex client, should i take saved topic and on client side, without hitting the database, programmatically pass all places which i need to update or...?
It seems to me that EAGER-ly fetched object with their associations is not good idea. Am i wrong?
Or, to 'simplify' :) again, what should you do in the mentioned scenario? So, you need to handle click on "Save topic" button, and now what...?
Again, i really try to explain this as plastic as possible because i'm confused with this. So, please forgive me for my long post.
From my point of view the point isn't in fetching mode itself but in client/server interaction. From my previous experience with it I've finally found some disadvantages of using pure domain objects (especially with eager fetching) for client/server interaction:
You have to pass all the child collections maybe without necessity to use them on a client side. In your case it is very likely you'll display topics and comments not for all users you get from server. The most like situation you need to display user list then display topics for one of the selected users and then comments for one of the selected topics. But in current implementation you receive all the topics and comments even if they are not needed to display. It is very possible you'll receive all your DB in a single query.
Another problem is it can be very insecure to get all the user data (or some other data) with all fields (emails, addresses, passwords, credit card numbers etc).
I think there can be other reasons not to use pure domain objects especially with eager fetching.
I suggest you to introduce some Mapper (or Assembler) layer to convert your domain objects to Data Transfer Objects aka DTO. So every query to your service layer will receive data from your DAO or Active Record and then convert it to corresponding DTO using corresponding Mapper. So you can get user list without private data and query some additional user details with a separate query.
On a client side you can use these DTOs directly or convert them into client domain objects. You can do it in your Cairngorm responders.
This way you can avoid a lot of your client side problems which you described.
For a Mapper layer you can use Dozer library or create your own lightweight mappers.
Hope this helps!
EDIT
What about your details I'd prefer to get user list with necessary displayable fields like first name and last name (to display in list). Say a list of SimpleUserRepresentationDTO.
Then if user requests user details for editing you request UserDetailsDTO for that user and fill tour selectedUser fields in model with it. The same is for topics.
The only problem is displaying list of users after user details editing. You can:
Request the whole list again. The advantage is you can display changes performed by other users. But if the list is too long it can be very ineffective to query all the users each time even if they are SimpleUserRepresentationDTO with minimal data.
When you get success from server on user details saving you can find corresponding user in model's user list and replace changed details there.
Tell you the truth, there's no good way of using Cairngorm. It's a crap framework.
I'm not too sure exactly what you mean by eager fetching (or what exactly is your problem), but whatever it is, it's still a request/response kind of deal and this shouldn't be a problem per say unless you're not doing something right; in which case I can't see your code.
As for frameworks, I recommend you look at RobotLegs or Parsley.
Look at the "dpHibernate" project. It implements "lazy loading" on the Flex client.