Develop Reference

How to implement a C# Winforms database application with synchronisation?

Background
I am developing a C# winforms application - currently up to about 11000 LOC and the UI and logic is about 75% done but there is no persistence yet. There are hundreds of attributes on the forms. There are 23 entities/data classes.
Requirement
The data needs to be kept in an SQL database. Most of the users operate remotely and we cannot rely on them having a connection so we need a solution that maintains a database locally and keeps it in synch with the central database.
Edit: Most of the remote users will only require a subset of the database in their local copy. This is because if they don't have access permissions (as defined and stored in my application) to view other user's records, they will not receive copies of them during synchronisation.
How can I implement this?
Suggested Solution
I could use the Microsoft Entity Framework to create a database and the link between database and code. This would save a lot of manual work as there are hundreds of attributes. I am new to this technology but have done a "hello world" project in it.
For data synch, each entity would have an integer primary key ID. Additionally it would have a secondary ID column which relates to the central database. This secondary column would contain nulls in the central database but would be populated in the local databases.
For synchronisation, I would write code which copies the records and assigns the IDs accordingly. I would need to handle conflicts.
Can anyone foresee any stumbling blocks to doing this? Would I be better off using one of the recommended solutions for data sychronisation, and if so would these work with the entity framework?

Synching data between relational databases is a pain. Your best course of action is probably dependent on: how many users will there be? How probably are conflicts (i.e. that the users will work offline on the same data). Also possibly what kind of manpower do you have (do you have proper DBAs/Sql Server devs standing by to assist with the SQL part, or are you just .NET devs).
I don't envy you this task, it smells of trouble. I'd especially be worried about data corruption and spreading that corruption to all clients rapidly. I'd put extreme countermeasures in place before any data in the remote DB gets updated.
If you predict a lot of conflicts - the same chunk of data gets modified many times by multiple users - I'd probably at least consider creating an additional 'merge' layer to figure out, what is the correct order of operations to perform on the remote db.
One thought - it might be very wrong and crazy, but just the thing that popped in my mind - would be to use JSON Patch on the entities, be it actual domain objects or some configuration containers. All the changes the user makes are recorded as JSON Patch statements, then applied to the local db, and when the user is online - submitted - with timestamps! - to merge provider. The JSON Patch statements from different clients could be grouped by the entity id and sorted by timestamp, and user could get feedback on what other operations from different users are queued - and manually make amends to it. Those grouped statments could be even stored in a files in a git repo. Then at some pre-defined intervals, or triggered manually, the update would be performed on a server-side app and saved to the remote db. After this the users local copies would be refreshed from server.
It's just a rough idea, but I think that you need something with similar capability - it doesn't have to be JSON Patch + Git, you can do it in probably hundreds of ways. I don't thing though, that you will get away with just going through the local/remote db and making updates/merges. Imagine the scenario, where user updates some data (let's say, 20 fields) offline, another makes completely different updates to 20 fields, and 10 of those are common between the users. Now, what should the synch process do? Apply earlier and then latter changes? I'm fairly certain that both users would be furious, because their input was 'atomic' - either everything is changed, or nothing is. The latter 'commit' must be either rejected, or users should have an option to amend it in respect of the new data. That highly depends what your data is, and as I said - what will be number/behaviour of users. Duh, even time-zones become important here - if you have users all in one time-zone you might get away with having predefined times of day when system synchs - but no way you'll convince people with many different business hours that the 'synch session' will happen at e.g. 11 AM, when they are usually giving presentation to management or sth ;)

How to Monitor Database Changes in EF6 with MySQL

I have two applications accessing a MySQL Database using EF6. I use one to input new data, and the other to display that data. However, I need to be notified upon changes to the database. I was duplicating the database then grabbing a new copy each time and comparing differences, however this is extremely inefficient.
Is there a way to monitor changes with EF6?

No, afaik theres no way to get notified by the database via entity framework about any changes.
Usually you have to implement some communication between your two applications. There are several possibilities for that, the two to first come into my mind are:
use some additional table in the DB where the first applications makes some "notes" when it changes data. These "notes" may contain a timestamp, so the second application can quickly decide, if there's anythin "new" in the database (the "notes" may contain additional information about what exactly has been added/changed)
You could also implement some direct communication between the two applications using WCF/sockets/IPC whatever. Depending on your scenario, this might be more performant (and changes might been detected quicker), but this is usually more difficult to implement.

c# update single db field or whole object?

This might seem like an odd question, but it's been bugging me for a while now. Given that i'm not a hugely experienced programmer, and i'm the sole application/c# developer in the company, I felt the need to sanity check this with you guys.
We have created an application that handles shipping information internally within our company, this application works with a central DB at our IT office.
We've recently switch DB from mysql to mssql and during the transition we decided to forgo the webservices previously used and connect directly to the DB using Application Role, for added security we only allow access to Store Procedures and all CRUD operations are handle via these.
However we currently have stored procedures for updating every field in one of our objects, which is quite a few stored procedures, and as such quite a bit of work on the client for the DataRepository (needing separate code to call the procedure and pass the right params for each procedure).
So i'm thinking, would it be better to simply update the entire object (in this case, an object represents a table, for example shipments) given that a lot of that data would be change one field at a time after initial insert, and that we are trying to keep the network usage down, as some of the clients will run with limited internet.
Whats the standard practice for this kind of thing? or is there a method that I've overlooked?

I would say that updating all the columns for the entire row is a much more common practice.
If you have a proc for each field, and you change multiple fields in one update, you will have to wrap all the stored procedure calls into a single transaction to avoid the database getting into an inconsistent state. You also have to detect which field changed (which means you need to compare the old row to the new row).
Look into using an Object Relational Mapper (ORM) like Entity Framework for these kinds of operations. You will find that there is not general consensus on whether ORMs are a great solution for all data access needs, but it's hard to argue that they solve the problem of CRUD pretty comprehensively.

Connecting directly to the DB over the internet isn't something I'd switch to in a hurry.
"we decided to forgo the webservices previously used and connect directly to the DB"
What made you decide this?
If you are intent on this model, then a single SPROC to update an entire row would be advantageous over one per column. I have a similar application which uses SPROCs in this way, however the data from the client comes in via XML, then a middleware application on our server end deals with updating the DB.

The standard practice is not to connect to DB over the internet.
Even for small app, this should be the overall model:
Client app -> over internet -> server-side app (WCF WebService) -> LAN/localhost -> SQL
DB
Benefits:
your client app would not even know that you have switched DB implementations.
It would not know anything about DB security, etc.
you, as a programmer, would not be thinking in terms of "rows" and "columns" on client side. Those would be objects and fields.
you would be able to use different protocols: send only single field updates between client app and server app, but update entire rows between server app and DB.
Now, given your situation, updating entire row (the entire object) is definitely more of a standard practice than updating a single column.

It's better to only update what you change if you know what you change (if using an ORM like entity Framework for example), but if you're going down the stored proc route then yes definately update everything in a row at once that's way granular enough.
You should take the switch as an oportunity to change over to LINQ to entities however if you're already in a big change and ditch stored procedures in the process whenever possible

Scrollable ODBC cursor in C#

I'm a C++ programmer and I'm not familiar with the .NET database model. I usually use IDataReader (OdbcDataReader, OledbDataReader or SqlDataReader) to read data from database. Sometimes when I need a bulk of data I use DataAdapter, but what should I do to achieve the functionality of scrollable cursors that exists in native libraries like ODBC?
Thanks all of you for your answers, but I am in a situation that I can't accept them, of course this is my fault that didn't explain my problem completely. I explain it as a comment in one of answers that now removed.
I have to write a program that will act as a proxy between client side program and MSSQL, for this library I have following requirements:
My program should be compatible with MSSQL2000
I don't know all the tables and queries that will be sent by the user, I should simply add some information to it, make a log, ... and then execute it against MSSQL, so it is really hard to use techniques that based on ordered field(s) of the query or primary key of the table(All my works are in one database but that database is huge and may change over time).
Only a part of data is needed by the client, most DBMS support LIMIT OFFSET, unfortunately MSSQL do not support it, and ROW_NUMBER does not exist in the MSSQL2000 and if it supported, then again I need to understand program logic and that need a parse of SQL command(Actually I write a parsing library with boost::spirit but that's native code and beside that I'm not yet 100% sure about its functionality).
I may have multiple clients but most of queries that will be sent by them are one of a few predefined queries(of course users still send custom queries but its about 30% of all queries), So I think I can open some scrollable cursors and respond to clients using that cursors and a custom cache.
Server machine and its MSSQL will be dedicated to my program, so I really want to use all of the power of the server and DBMS to achieve my functionality.
So now:
What is the problem in using scrollable cursors and why I should avoid them?
How can I use scrollable cursors in .NET?

In SQL Server you can create queries paged thus. The page number you handle it easily from the application. You do not need to create cursors for this task.
For SQL Server 2005 o higher
SELECT * FROM ( SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ID) AS ROW FROM TABLEA ) AS ALIAS
WHERE ROW > 40
AND ROW <= 49
For SQL Server 2000
SELECT TOP 10 T.* FROM TABLA AS T WHERE T.ID NOT IN
( SELECT TOP 39 id from tabla order by id desc )
ORDER BY T.ID DESC
PD: edited to include support for SQL Server 2000

I usually use DataReader.Read() to skip all rows that I do not want to use when doing paging on a DB which do not support paging.
If you don't want to build the SQL paged query yourself you are free to use my paging class: https://github.com/jgauffin/Griffin.Data/blob/master/src/Griffin.Data/BasicLayer/Paging/SqlServerPager.cs

When Microsoft designed the ADO.NET API, they made the decision to expose only firehose cursors (IDataReader etc). This may or may not actually pose a problem for you. You say that you want "functionality of scrollable cursors", but that can mean all sorts of things, not just paging, and each particular use case can be tackled in a variety of ways. For example:
Requirement: The user should be able to arbitrarily page up and down the resultset.
Retrieve only one page of data at a time, e.g. using the ROW_NUMBER() function. This is more efficient than scrolling through a cursor.
Requirement: I have an extremely large data set and I only want to process one row at a time to avoid running out of memory.
Use the firehose cursor provided by ADO.NET. Note that this is only practical if (a) you don't need to hit the database at all during the loop, or (b) you have MARS configured in your connection string.
Simulate a keyset cursor by retrieving the set of unique identifiers into an array, then loop through the array and read one row of data at a time.
Requirement: I am doing a complicated calculation that involves moving forwards and backwards through the resultset.
You should be able to re-write your algorithm to eliminate this requirement. For example, read one set of rows, process them, read another set of rows, process them, etc.
UPDATE (more information provided in the question)
Your business requirements are asking too much. You have to handle arbitrary queries that assume the presence of scrollable cursors, but you can't provide scrollable cursors, and you can't re-write the client code to not use scrollable cursors. That's an impossible position to be in. I recommend you stick with what you currently have (C++ and ODBC) and don't bother trying to re-write it in .NET.

I don't think cursors will work for you particular case. The main reason is that you have 3 tiers. But let's take two steps back.
Most 3 tier applications have a stateless middle tier (your c++ code). Caching is fine since it really just an optimization and does not create any real state in the middle tier. The middle tier normally has a small number of open sessions to the database. Because opening a db session is expensive for the processor, and after the db session is open a set amount of RAM is reserved at the database server. When a request is received by the middle tier, the request is processed and handed on to the SQL database. An algorithm may be used to pick any of the open sessions, or it can even be done at random. In this model it is not possible to know what session will receive the next request. Cursors belong to the session that received the original query request. So you can't really expect that the receiving session will be the one that has your open cursor.
The 3 tier model I described is used mainly for web applications so they can scale to hundreds or thousands of clients. Were SQL servers would never be able to open that many sessions. Microsoft ADO.NET already has many features to support the kind of architecture I described, so it is not very hard to implement. And the same is used even in non Web applications depending on the circumstance. You could potentially keep track of your sessions so you could open a single session per client, I would first make sure that the use case justifies that. Know that open cursors can take up a lot of resources as well.
Cursors still have a place within a single transaction, it's just hard to keep them open so that the client application can fetch/update values within the result set.
What I would suggest its that you do the following within the query transaction. Store in a separate table the primary key values of the main table in your query. On the separate table include other values like sessionid and rownumber. Return a few of the first rows by linking to the new table in the original query. And in subsequent calls just query the corresponding rows again by linking to your new table. You will need an equivalent to a caching mechanism to purge old data, and to refresh the result set according to your needs.

C# and Access 2000

I have developed an network application that is in use in my company for last few years.
At start it was managing information about users, rights etc.
Over the time it grew with other functionality. It grew to the point that I have tables with, let's say 10-20 columns and even 20,000 - 40,000 records.
I keep hearing that Access in not good for multi-user environments.
Second thing is the fact that when I try to read some records from the table over the network, the whole table has to be pulled to the client.
It happens because there is no database engine on the server side and data filtering is done on the client side.
I would migrate this project to the SQL Server but unfortunately it cannot be done in this case.
I was wondering if there is more reliable solution for me than using Access Database and still stay with a single-file database system.
We have quite huge system using dBase IV.
As far as I know it is fully multiuser database system.
Maybe it will be good to use it instead of Access?
What makes me not sure is the fact that dBase IV is much older than Access 2000.
I am not sure if it would be a good solution.
Maybe there are some other options?

If you're having problems with your Jet/ACE back end with the number of records you mentioned, it sounds like you have schema design problems or an inefficiently-structured application.
As I said in my comment to your original question, Jet does not retrieve full tables. This is a myth propagated by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. If you have appropriate indexes, only the index pages will be requested from the file server (and then, only those pages needed to satisfy your criteria), and then the only data pages retrieved will be those that have the records that match the criteria in your request.
So, you should look at your indexing if you're seeing full table scans.
You don't mention your user population. If it's over 25 or so, you probably would benefit from upsizing your back end, especially if you're already comfortable with SQL Server.
But the problem you described for such tiny tables indicates a design error somewhere, either in your schema or in your application.
FWIW, I've had Access apps with Jet back ends with 100s of thousands of records in multiple tables, used by a dozen simultaneous users adding and updating records, and response time retrieving individual records and small data sets was nearly instantaneous (except for a few complex operations like checking newly entered records for duplication against existing data -- that's slower because it uses lots of LIKE comparisons and evaluation of expressions for comparison). What you're experiencing, while not an Access front end, is not commensurate with my long experience with Jet databases of all sizes.

You may wish to read this informative thread about Access: Is MS Access (JET) suitable for multiuser access?

For the record this answer is copied/edited from another question I answered.
Aristo,
You CAN use Access as your centralized data store.
It is simply NOT TRUE that access will choke in multi-user scenarios--at least up to 15-20 users.
It IS true that you need a good backup strategy with the Access data file. But last I checked you need a good backup strategy with SQL Server, too. (With the very important caveat that SQL Server can do "hot" backups but not Access.)
So...you CAN use access as your data store. Then if you can get beyond the company politics controlling your network, perhaps then you could begin moving toward upfitting your current application to use SQL Server.
I recently answered another question on how to split your database into two files. Here is the link.
Creating the Front End MDE
Splitting your database file into front end : back end is sort of a key to making it more performant. (Assume, as David Fenton mentioned, that you have a reasonably good design.)
If I may mention one last thing...it is ridiculous that your company won't give you other deployment options. Surely there is someone there with some power who you can get to "imagine life without your application." I am just wondering if you have more power than you might realize.
Seth

The problems you experience with an Access Database shared amongst your users will be the same with any file based database.
A read will pull a lot of data into memory and writes are guarded with some type of file lock. Under your environment it sounds like you are going to have to make the best of what you have.

"Second thing is the fact that when I try to read some records from the table over the network, the whole table has to be pulled to the client. "
Actually no. This is a common misstatement spread by folks who do not understand the nature of how Jet, the database engine inside Access, works. Pulling down all the records, or excessive number of records, happens because you don't have all the fields used in the selection criteria or sorting in the index. We've also found that indexing yes/no aka boolean fields can also make a huge difference in some queries.
What really happens is that Jet brings down the index pages and data pages which are required. While this is a lot more data than a database engine would create this is not the entire table.
I also have clients with 600K and 800K records in various tables and performance is just fine.

We have an Access database application that is used pretty heavily. I have had 23 users on all at the same time before without any issues. As long as they don't access the same record then I don't have any problems.
I do have a couple of forms that are used and updated by several different departments. For instance I have a Quoting form that contains 13 different tabs and 10-20 fields on each tab. Users are typically in a single record for minutes editing and looking for information. To avoid any write conflicts I call the below function any time a field is changed. As long as it is not a new record being entered, then it updates.
Function funSaveTheRecord()
If ([chkNewRecord].value = False And Me.Dirty) Then
'To save the record, turn off the form's Dirty property
Me.Dirty = False
End If
End Function
They way I have everything setup is as follows:
PDC.mdb <-- Front End, Stored on the users machine. Every user has their own copy. Links to tables found in PDC_be.mdb. Contains all forms, reports, queries, macros, and modules. I created a form that I can use to toggle on/off the shift key bipass. Only I have access to it.
PDC_be.mdb <-- Back End, stored on the server. Contains all data. Only form and VBA it contains is to toggle on/off the shift key bipass. Only I have access to it.
Secured.mdw <-- Security file, stored on the server.
Then I put a shortcut on the users desktop that ties the security file to the front end and also provides their login credentials.
This database has been running without error or corruption for over 6 years.

Access is not a flat file database system! It's a relational database system.

You can't use SQL Server Express?
Otherwise, MySQL is a good database.
But if you can't install ANYTHING (you should get into those politics sooner rather than later -- or it WILL be later), just use you existing database system.
Basically with Access, it cannot handle more than 5 people connected at the same time, or it will corrupt on you.