I'm not sure if this is feasible or not but is there a way in C# that will allow me to generate static members or enumrator of all the lookup values in a database table?
For example, if I have a table for countries with 2 columns: code, countryname. I want a way to convert all the rows in this table into a class with properity for each row so I can do the following:
string countryCode = Country.Egypt.Code
Where Egypt is a generated property from the database table.
When you say "to convert all the rows", do you actually mean "to convert all the columns"?
I so, and if your ADO.NET provider supports it, you can use LINQ to SQL to auto-generate a class that has properties that match the columns in your table. You can follow this procedure:
Right-click on your project and Add / New Item / LINQ to SQL Classes. By default, this will generate a DataClasses1.dbml file with DataClasses1DataContext class.
Expand the database connection of interest in the Server Explorer, under Data Connections (you may need to add it there first through right-click on Data Connections).
Pick the table of interest and drag'n'drop it onto the surface of DataClasses1.dbml.
Assuming your table name was COUNRTY with fields NAME and CODE, you can then use it from your code like this:
using (var db = new DataClasses1DataContext()) {
COUNRTY egypt = db.COUNRTies.Where(row => row.NAME == "Egypt").SingleOrDefault();
if (egypt == null) {
// "Egypt" is not in the database.
}
else {
var egypt_code = egypt.CODE;
// Use egypt_code...
}
}
If you actually meant "rows", I'm not aware of an automated way to do that (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist!). Writing a small program that goes through all rows, extracts the actual values and generates some C# text should be a fairly simple exercise though.
But even if you do that, how would you handle database changes? Say, a value is deleted from the database yet it still exists in your program because it existed at the time of compilation? Or is added to the database but is missing from your program?
This cannot be done because Country.Egypt has to be available at compile time. I think your options are:
Generate code for Country class from database. Of course, the question then is how will clients use it?
Keep the Properties statically declared and read their Code from database during application start-up
Keep the properties as well as code statically declared and check them against database during application start-up.
Further to #1 above, if the client code does not depend on individual property names then these are not types but data and you could just as well use a Country.AllCountries property for that is initialized at start-up.
Related
The product I'm working on will need to support different database types. At first, it needs to support SQL Server and Oracle, but in the future it may need to support IBM DB2 and Postgre SQL.
And the product will need to be working for different customers who might have slightly different schemas. For example a column name on one client with SQL Server might be _ID and on another client with Oracle it could be I_ID.
The general schema will be the same except the column names. They all could potentially be mapped to the same object. But, there may be some extra columns that are specific to each customer. These do not need to be mapped to an object though. They can be retrieved in a Master-Detail scenario using a simpler way.
I wanted use an ORM as we will need to support different types of database providers. But as far as I can understand, ORMs are not good with creating a mapping on runtime.
To support these requests (summary):
Column names may be different for each customer, but they are pretty much the same columns except names.
Database provider may be different for each customer.
There may be extra columns for each customer.
Edit: Program should be able to support a new database by changing the configuration during runtime.
What is a good way to create a data access for such specifications? Is there a way to do it with ORMs? Or do I need to write code specific to each database to support this scenario? Do I have any other option that would make it easier than using ADO.NET directly?
Edit: I think I wrote my question a bit too broad, and didn't explain it clearly, sorry about that. The problem is I won't be creating the databases. They will be created already, and the program should be able to work with a new database by configuring the program during runtime. I have no control over the databases.
The other thing is, of course it is possible to do it by creating SQL statements in the program, but that is really cumbersome. All these providers have slightly different rules and different SQL implementations, so it is a lot of work. I was wondering if I could use something like an ORM to make it easier for me.
Edit 2: I am totally aware that this is a stupid way to do things, and it shows bad design decisions. But I have spent so many hours trying to convince my company to not do it this way. They don't want to change their way of thinking because an intern tells them so. So any help would be appreciated.
Column names may be different for each customer, but they pretty much the same columns except names.
Because of this requirement alone you're going to have to build your SQL statement dynamically, on your own, but it's really pretty straight forward. I would recommend building a table like this:
CREATE TABLE DataTable (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
Name SYSNAME NOT NULL
)
to store all of the tables in the database. Then build one like this:
CREATE TABLE DataTableField (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
DataTableID INT NOT NULL,
Name SYSNAME NOT NULL
)
to store the base names for the fields. You'll just have to pick a schema and call it the baseline. That's what goes in those two tables. Then you have a table like this:
CREATE TABLE Customer (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
Name VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL
)
to store all the unique customers you have using the product, and then finally a table like this:
CREATE TABLE CustomerDataTableField (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
CustomerID INT NOT NULL,
DataTableFieldID INT NOT NULL,
Name SYSNAME,
IsCustom BIT
)
to store the different field names for each customer. We'll discuss the IsCustom in a minute.
Now you can leverage these tables to build your SQL statements dynamically. In C#, you might cache all this data up front when the application first loads and then use those data structures to build the SQL statements. But get started on that and if you have specific questions about that then create a new question, add the code you already have, and let us know where you're having trouble.
Database provider may be different for each customer.
Here you're going to need to use something like Dapper because it works with POCO classes (like what you'll be building) and it also simply extends the IDbConnection interface so it doesn't matter what concrete class you use (e.g. SqlConnection or OracleConnection), it works the same.
There may be extra columns for each customer.
This is actually quite straight forward. Leverage the IsCustom field in the CustomerDataTableField table to add those fields to your dynamically built SQL statements. That solves the database side. Now, to solve the class side, I'm going to recommend you leverage partial classes. So consider a class like this:
public partial class MyTable
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Field1 { get; set; }
}
and that represents the baseline schema. Now, everything maps into those fields except those marked IsCustom, so we need to do something about those. Well, let's build an extension to this class:
public partial class MyTable
{
public string Field2 { get; set; }
}
and so now when you build a new MyTable() it will always have these additional fields. But, you don't want that for every customer do you? Well, that's why we use partial classes, you define these partial classes in external assemblies that only get installed for the right customer. Now you have a bunch of small, customer specific extensions to the system, and they are easily developed, installed, and maintained.
I have the following scenario: there are a database that generates a new logTable every year. It started on 2001 and now has 11 tables. They all have the same structure, thus the same fields, indexes,pk's, etc.
I have some classes called managers that - as the name says - manages every operation on this DB. For each different table i have a manager, except for this logTable which i have only one manager.
I've read a lot and tried different things like using ITable to get tables dynamically or an interface that all my tables implements. Unfortunately, i lose strong-typed properties and with that i can't do any searches or updates or anything, since i can't use logTable.Where(q=> q.ID == paramId).
Considering that those tables have the same structure, a query that searches logs from 2010 can be the exact one that searches logs from 2011 and on.
I'm only asking this because i wouldn't like to rewrite the same code for each table, since they are equal on it's structure.
EDIT
I'm using Linq to SQL as my ORM. And these tables uses all DB operations, not just select.
Consider putting all your logs in one table and using partitioning to maintain performance. If that is not feasible you could create a view that unions all the log tables together and use that when selecting log data. That way when you added a new log table you just update the view to include the new table.
EDIT Further to the most recent comment:
Sounds like you need a new DBA if he won't let you create new SPs. Yes I think could define an ILogTable interface and then make your log table classes implement it, but that would not allow you do GetTable<ILogTable>(). You would have to have some kind of DAL class with a method that created a union query, e.g.
public IEnumerable<ILogTable> GetLogs()
{
var Log2010 = from log in DBContext.2010Logs
select (ILogTable)log;
var Log2011 = from log in DBContext.2011Logs
select (ILogTable)log;
return Log2010.Concat(Log2011);
}
Above code is completely untested and may fail horribly ;-)
Edited to keep #AS-CII happy ;-)
You might want to look into the Codeplex Fluent Linq to SQL project. I've never used it, but I'm familiar with the ideas from using similar mapping techniques in EF4. YOu could create a single object and map it dynamically to different tables using syntax such as:
public class LogMapping : Mapping<Log> {
public LogMapping(int year) {
Named("Logs" + year);
//Column mappings...
}
}
As long as each of your queries return the same shape, you can use ExecuteQuery<Log>("Select cols From LogTable" + instance). Just be aware that ExecuteQuery is one case where LINQ to SQL allows for SQL Injection. I discuss how to parameterize ExecuteQuery at http://www.thinqlinq.com/Post.aspx/Title/Does-LINQ-to-SQL-eliminate-the-possibility-of-SQL-Injection.
I have a library which uses EF4 for accessing a SQL Server data store. For different reasons, I have to use SQL Server specific syntax to read data from the store (for free text search), so I have to create the SQL code by hand and send it through the ExecuteStoreQuery method.
This works fine, except that the query uses joins to request several tables aside the main one (the main one being the one I specify as the target entity set when calling ExecuteStoreQuery), and EF never fills up the main entity's relationship properties with the other table's data.
Is there anything special to do to fill up these relationships? Using other EF methods or using special table names in the query or something?
Thanks for your help.
Executing direct SQL follows very simple rule: It uses column from the result set to fill the property with the same name in materialized entity. I think I read somewhere that this works only with the the main entity you materialize (entity type defined in ExecuteStoreQuery = no relations) but I can't find it now. I did several tests and it really doesn't populate any relation.
Ok so I'll write here what I ended up doing, which does not looks like a perfect solution, but it does not seem that there is any perfect solution in this case.
As Ladislav pointed out, the ExecuteStoreQuery (as well as the other "custom query" method, Translate) only maps the column of the entity you specify, leaving all the other columns aside. Therefore I had to load the dependencies separately, like this :
// Execute
IEnumerable<MainEntity> result = context.ExecuteStoreQuery<MainEntity>(strQuery, "MainEntities", MergeOption.AppendOnly, someParams).ToArray();
// Load relations, first method
foreach (MainEntity e in result)
{
if (!e.Relation1Reference.IsLoaded)
e.Relation1Reference.Load();
if (!e.Relation2Reference.IsLoaded)
e.Relation2Reference.Load();
// ...
}
// Load relations, second method
// The main entity contains a navigation property pointing
// to a record in the OtherEntity entity
foreach(OtherEntity e in context.OtherEntities)
context.OtherEntities.Attach(e);
There. I think these two techniques have to be chosen depending on the number and size of generated requests. The first technique will generate a one-record request for every required side record, but no unnessecary record will be loaded. The second technique uses less requests (one per table) but retrieves all the records so it uses more memory.
I have a table called Vendors for example. I also created a class called Vendor so that I can fill a ListView with Vendor Objects. Let's say that that table contains two columns ( Name and Phone) therefore my class Vendor contains those two string properties. If I have an ArrayList of Vendor objects and I wish to delete does vendors in the database how could I do this without building the query?
I am building a class to fill the listview dynamically based on whatever query I pass to the constructor of that class. The class then creates a SqlDataReader object to loop through the records. depending on how many columns there are they will dynamically be added to the listview. The only problem is that when I want to delete the selected rows for example (selected rows will be a collection of vendor objects if referred to the above example) sometimes I get errors building the query. sometimes some of the columns are null and I do not know in advance which column will be the primary key. Moreover the class vendors gets constructed dynamically based on the result from the query. So everything is great. I know I can create a linqToSqlClass or maybe bind it to a dataset. It will be nice if I do not have to modify this class. Maybe when I am looping through the records there is some way of finding the primary key of that row.
If you're using SQL 2008 you could create a procedure that accepts a Table-Valued parameter.
Another option is to convert your ArrayList to an XML string and pass that to a stored procedure works with SQL 2000 and greater
I pass the primary key table name to the constructor of that class and I made that field a required parameter. That way I can build the query more easy. I knew I can do this at the beginning I am just trying to avoid having to pass extra parameters to the class if somehow I can prevent that. LinqToSQLdata classes in visual studio enable you to do that.
Okay, so i've studied c# and asp.net long enough and would like to know how all these custom classes i created relate to the database. for example.
i have a class call Employee
public class Employee
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
}
and i have a database with the following 4 fields:
ID
Name
EmailAddress
PhoneNumber
it seems like the custom class is my database. and in asp.net i can simple run the LINQ to SQL command on my database and get the whole schema of my class without typing out a custom class with getter and setter.
so let's just say that now i am running a query to retrieve a list of employees. I would like to know how does my application map to my Employee class to my database?
by itself, it doesn't. But add any ORM or similar, and you start to get closer. for example, LINQ-to-SQL (which I mention because it is easy to get working with Visual Studio), you typically get (given to you by the tooling) a custom "data context" class, which you use as:
using(var ctx = new MyDatabase()) {
foreach(var emp in ctx.Employees) {
....
}
}
This is generating TSQL and mapping the data to objects automatically. By default the tooling creates a separate Employee class, but you can tweak this via partial classes. This also supports inserts, data changes and deletion.
There are also tools that allow re-use of your existing domain objects; either approach can be successful - each has advantages and disadvantages.
If you only want to read data, then it is even easier; a micro-ORM such as dapper-dot-net allows you to use our type with TSQL that you write, with it handling the tedious materialisation code.
Your question is a little vague, imo. But what you are referring to is the Model of the MVC (Model-View-Controller) architecture.
What the Model , your Employee Class, manages data of the application. So it can not only get and set (save / update) your data, but it can also be used to notify of a data change. (Usually to the view).
You mentioned you where using SQL, so more then likely you could create and save an entire employee record by sending an Associative Array of the table data to save it to the database. Your setting for the Class would handle the unique SQL syntax to INSERT the data. In larger MVC Frameworks. The Model of your application inherits several other classes to handle the proper saving to different types of backends other than MS SQL.
Models will also, normally, have functions to handle finding records and updating records. This is normally by specify a search field, and it returning the record, of which would include the ID and you would normally base this back into a save / update function to make changes to record. You could also tie into this level of the Model to create revision of the data you are saving
So how the model directly correlates to your SQL structure is dependent on how you right it. Or which Framework you decide to use. I believe a common one for asp.net is the Microsoft's ASP.Net MVC
Your class cannot be directly mapped to the database without ORM tool, The ORM tool will read your configuration and will map your class to DB row as per your mappings automatically. That means you don't need to read the row and set the class fields explicitly but you have to provide mapping files and have to go through the ORM framework to load the entities, and the framework will take care of the rest
You can check nHibernate and here is getting started on nHibernate.