Develop Reference

Orchard model inheritance with Table-Per-Concrete-Type?

I know that the underlying ORM used in Orchard is NHibernate and it does support the so-called ClassMapping which may help customize the mappings the way we want.
However I'm not sure about how Orchard utilizes the mapping methods supported by NHibernate. In this case it seems to always use the strategy similar to Table Per Type in EF as well as some other ORMs. With that strategy, the base class will be mapped to some common table whereas the derived class will be mapped to another table which contains all properties of its own (not declared in the base class). Those 2 tables will have a one-one relationship.
Now I really want to make it use the strategy similar to Table Per Concrete Type in which the base and derived classes will be mapped to 2 different tables with all properties (including inherited properties) being mapped to columns. Those 2 tables will not have any relationship, so querying for columns in just one table will not unexpectedly generate an inner JOIN (for one-one relationship).
Actually that requirement makes sense in case we just need to partition our data (from 1 big table to 2 or more small tables that have the same schema). We don't want to re-declare or use some kind of duplicate model classes (with different names), instead we just need to create a new model class and let it inherit from one base model class containing all necessary properties.
With the current code like this:
public class ARecord {
//properties ...
}
public class BRecord : ARecord {
//empty here
}
Currently we cannot use BRecord because it is understood as another part of the ARecord, the auto-generated query (always with INNER JOIN) will be failed because of some does-not-exist table or column names.
How can I solve this?

You're not going to like it ;) In a nutshell, the answer is don't do inheritance at all. Orchard was very deliberately designed around the idea of composition, steering well clear of inheritance in its content models. Maybe the central idea in Orchard is to make the concept of content part the "atom of content", and to design those basic units as very simple and composable pieces of functionality that do one thing well.
After all these years, the concept has held remarkably well, and I've yet to see an example of a content model where inheritance would have been more elegant and appropriate. This is reflected in the way nHibernate is customized and used in Orchard, as you've discovered.
So the solution to your problem can likely be one of two things:
You're modeling contents, and you should re-think your approach towards composition of parts. If you give a little more details about your specific scenario (maybe in a new question), I'm happy to help specifically in this direction.
You're modeling non-content data, in which case you might want to consider opting out of Orchard's specific nHibernate content-specialized idiosyncrasies and do things closer to the metal. Again, if you give more specifics about your scenario, I'm happy to take a look and give some pointers.

Making generic getters and setters

I have a problem where I have to get the column names and their values from all the Tables in my schema and show that the result in a grid.
I have used the direct approach for this but I have to implement the SqlSiphon structure. For this I have to make getters and setters of each of the column of each Table in the schema which is impossible.
What should I use to get the Column names and their values dynamically from the table.
SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS
WHERE
TABLE_NAME = '" + #Tablename1 + "' AND TABLE_SCHEMA='dbo'"
What will be the best dynamic solution?
And what will be Best to use List , Dictionay or something like 2d Array which will give the column names as well as column values?

A few suggestions:
I'm not completely clear on what you're trying to achieve, but consider using an ORM (Linq2SQL, WEF, NHibernate)
In .NET, a suitable type to represent a database table would be a DataTable
Edit: After a few more re-reads I think I understand what you're asking - you already have a database/schema and you want to automatically create the entity classes needed by SqlSiphon. This is called "database-first" (as opposed to model-first). However, from a brief scan of the SqlSiphon documentation it appears it does not support database-first. Is this why you are trying to put the columns into a grid - to make it easier to manually create the entity classes for SqlSiphon?
Edit2: Note that trying to use an ORM on top of a database whose schema is frequently modified will be problematic. My next guess is that you're trying to figure out how to create an entity class in SqlSiphon which you can use to retrieve database schema information like table columns? I'm still struggling to understand what you're actually asking here - perhaps you can update your question?
Edit3: I think the answer to your question is take a different approach to your design - ORM's like SqlSiphon are not intended to be used to retrieve and modify the database schema itself.

Might be worth taking a step back an comparing against how other people solve similar problems.
Typically, each table on a database represents an entity, and you also have a class per entity, and you may use an ORM system to avoid duplication of work. So, in a typical system, you have a table for customers, and a table for invoices, and a table for invoice lines, etc. and then a class that represents a customer, a class for an invoice, a class for an invoice line, etc. As you later add functionality (and possible columns/properties) you change the classes, rather than just seeing what columns are on the database - you can of course decorate these with XML documentation and get Intelisense goodness.
There are many ORM systems out there, and each have their strengths and weaknesses, but I personally like LINQ to SQL for adding onto an existing data model.

EF DB-first mapping mess

I have a frustrating situation owing to this little quirk of EF. Here's a simple demo of the behavior. First the DB schema:
As you see, RestrictedProduct is a special case of product, which I'm intending to make a subclass of Product with some special code.
Now I import to an EF data model:
Oops! EF saw that RestrictedProduct had only 2 fields, both FKs, so it mapped it as a one-to-many relationship between Product and Restriction. So I go back to the database and add a Dummy field to RestrictedProduct, and now my EF model looks much better:
But that Dummy field is silly and pointless. Maybe I could delete it? I blow away the field from the DB table and the entity model, then refresh the model from the DB...
Oh, no! The Product-Restriction association is back, under a new name (RestrictedProduct1)! Plus, it won't compile:
Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines (x, y) :Two entities with possibly different keys are mapped to the same row. Ensure these two mapping fragments map both ends of the AssociationSet to the corresponding columns.
Is there any way to prevent this behavior, short of keeping the Dummy field on the RestrictedProduct table?

I just came across the same issue, and as an alternative to putting the dummy field in your RestrictedProduct table to force the creation of an entity you can also make your RestrictedProduct.RestrictionId field nullable and EF will then generate an entity for it. You can then modify it to use inheritance and any subsequent "Update model from database" will not cause undesired nav properties. Not really a nice solution but a work around.

Let's walk slowly into your problem.
1st thing you need to decide is if the restricted product is
really a special case of product or is it a possible extension
to each product.
From your original DB Scheme it seems that any product may have
a relation to a single restriction however a single restriction
can be shared among many products.. so this is a simple 1 to many
situation which means that restricted product is NOT a special case
of product! Restriction is an independent entity which has nothing
to do with product in a specific way.
Therefore EF is correct in the 1st importation of your scheme:
1. a product can have 0 or 1 restrictions.
2. a restriction is another entity which can be related to many products.
I do not see your problem.

Tricky Fluent Nhibernate modeling with subs of subclasses

I'm moving a project off of a custom DAL and onto Nhibernate but I've run into a tricky mapping scenario that I don't know how to resolve. Essentially, there are sub classes of a subclass without a discriminator value.
The primary subclass has a discriminator value so that was trivial. The issue arises when I get to the third level. The only difference between the sub-sub types is which table references them (in a HasOne style map).
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks :)

If you want the third-level objects to be records in the same table, I'd add a discriminator to the third-level type. It can be a calculated property based on the parent type. Using FluentNH, I think it does have to be visible to the mapper (you can't use the tricks that vanilla NHibernate has to reflectively examine private members).
That's if you want to have them all in the same table. If you don't care too much about table count in your schema, you simply cannot include a discriminator, and/or the schema definitions of the third-level types are different enough that mapping to a single table would provide "odd" results (like a lot of null columns or very general/nondescriptive column names), then simply create a mapping for each concrete subtype to a different table.
You can also de-normalize the schema. Since it's a HasOne() relationship, the subclass can contain the columns of the third-level class using a Component mapping. If all of the third-level types map to similar fields, and you think it'll be unlikely that this relationship will change from 1:1 to 1:n, this is probably the way to go.

NHibernate / Fluent NHibernate Dynamic Column Mapping

I have a table that, some of its columns are unknown at compile time. Such columns could either be of an integer value, or some Enum value. There is a table that holds all the names of such dynamic columns and also holds the column's type. This "metatable" has the following columns:
DynamicColumnId (Pk)
Name
TypeId (Integer / Enum, as Fk from a separate table)
Integer columns have the Name from this table, whereas Enum columns are Fk columns from a table that has that Name, with some modification (e.g. a "DynamicTable" prefix).
The only solution I could think of for this situation is using Reflection.Emit to dynamically create an Entity class and a corresponding Mapping class. Admittedly, I'm new to NHybernate / Fluent NHybernate and it seems like a relatively simple hierarchy between the tables, and so I wanted to verify my solution isn't as ugly as it initially appears...
I would also welcome solutions that completely disregard my table hierarchy, in order to effectively acheive the same results (that is, to enumerate the rows on the dynamic table, going over all the columns, with knowledge of whether they are Enums and, if they are, their possible values as well).
(Edit: Additional information re problem domain)
I initially included minimal details, as to avoid Too-Much-Info related confusion.
This description is much more complex, but it unravels the motives behind this design.
The application involved is designed to automate log/dump analysis. Analysis-scenarios are frequently provided by the log/dump experts and so, in order to streamline the typical process of requirements=>implementation=>verification cycle, such analysis-scenarios are implemented by the experts directly as an Iron Python code snippet, with some domain-specific constructs injected into the snippets' scope. Each snippet has a "context" for which it is relevant. An example of "context" could be "product," "version," etc... So, the snippet itself is only invoked in certain contexts - this helps simplifying the Python code by eliminating branching (you could view it as Aspect Oriented Programming, to some extent). A non-expert could use the application, with a given code-context database, to analyze a log/dump, after choosing values for the various contexts.
When an expert decides that a new context is required for cataloging a certain code snippet, he could add a context, indicating the possible values it could have. Once a new context is added to the database, a non-expert that runs an analysis will be given the option to choose a value for the newly-added context.
The "dynamic table" is the table that associates a code snippet with values of the various contexts (columns) that existed when the snippet was issued, plus default values for the columns that did not exist at that time.

I won't claim to fully understand your scenario, but it seems to me that you'd be better off using a key-value store such as Redis or a schema-less database like CouchDB instead of SQL. This doesn't seem to be a problem for a relational database, but if you really need to use a RDBMS I'd map NHibernate as closely as possible to the real schema (DynamicColumnId, Name, TypeId) then build whatever data structure you need on top of that.