I find myself doing something like this very often in my repositories:
protected $currencies;
public function findAll()
{
if (!isset($this->currencies))
{
$this->currencies = parent::findAll();
}
return $this->currencies;
}
So all services that need the collection of entity objects
can just call findAll on the repository
without starting database query/hydration process more than once.
Is it right or am I misusing Repository pattern?
What is Your way of keeping collections locally?
If you have to do something like this, you are probably abusing your controllers/services. Is there some reason you need cached results within memory when this is live only during request? Ie once the page loads, all of this is gone.
This only makes sense if you use same findAll results multiple times within page and that is what you need to fix.
Related
for a project, I am trying to create a web-app that, among other things, allows training of machine learning agents using python libraries such as Dedupe or TensorFlow. In cases such as Dedupe, I need to provide an interface for active learning, which I currently realize through jquery based ajax calls to a view that takes and sends the necessary training data.
The problem is that I need this agent object to stay alive throughout multiple view calls and be accessible by each individual call. I have tried realizing this via the built-in cache system using Memcached, but the serialization does not seem to keep all the info intact, and while I am technically able to restore the object from the cache, this appears to break the training algorithm.
Essentially, I want to keep the object alive within the application itself (rather than an external memory store) and be able to access it from another view, but I am at a bit of a loss of how to realize this.
If someone knows the proper technique to achieve this, I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance!
To follow up with this question, I have since realized that the behavior shown seemed to have been an effect of trying to use the result of a method call from the object loaded from cache directly in the return properties of a view. Specifically, my code looked as follows:
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the wrong object (same object as on an earlier call)
return JsonResponse({"pairs": model.uncertain_pairs()})
and was changed to the following
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the correct object (calls and returns the model.uncertain_pairs() method properly)
uncertain = model.uncertain_pairs()
return JsonResponse({"pairs": uncertain})
I am unsure if this specifically happens due to an implementation from Dedupe or Django side or due to Python, but this has undoubtedly fixed the issue.
To return back to the question, Django does seem to be able to properly (de-)serialize objects and their properties in cache, as long as the cache is set up properly (see Apparent bug storing large keys in django memcached which I also had to deal with)
Our analytics database has alot of empty data stored in cachedValue. This data seems to get returned forever. I want to basically check that the required data is present in the cache, and if not, then do a new lookup.
I also want to allow testers to trigger this fresh lookup using a query string variable.
I've used reflector and noticed some Invalidate functions, but this appears to just clear cookies or remove the data from the in memory cache. It looks like I want to set the cachedGeoIpHandle.GeoResolveState = Failed, not sure how to do this yet.
I also see exactly where I could make this happen in the GeoIpManager, but I can override, extend that class.
Thanks.
Previously when I developed ember application I used App as my global object and every class was stored in this big object.
Like this
window.App.MyModel = Em.Object.extend({});
And in the browser console, I was able to do
App.MyModel.create();
So it was really easy for me to access MyModel class.
Now I started experiments with Ember-CLI, I don't have much experience with this kind of tools. I followed the documentations and I created my model Service like this.
var Service = Ember.Object.extend({});
export default Service
But now, how to access Service class from browser console?
Only way I found was:
App.__container__.resolve('model:service')
But I don't like it much. Is there better way? Btw, can you please explain how export works? Or is there some source (documentation, article) where I can study it?
Thanks a lot for response.
If you're aiming to have something available in most places throughout your application you'll typically want to register it on the container.
There are multiple ways to access the container, and you're correct in that the one you found was less than ideal. The running joke is "any time you directly access __container__ we need to add more underscores."
To directly control how things are registered on the container and injected into the container you typically want to use an initializer. Using initializers in ember-cli is super-easy, they're executed for you automatically.
Checking out the documentation you can see that you get access to the application's container as an argument which allows you to manipulate it in a safe manner.
Once you have access to the container you can use register and inject to make content easily available in particular locations. This was introduced here. One note, accessing things inside of the container from outside the context of your app (browser console) will require the usage of App.__container__ and that is the expected use pattern.
And the export you're running into is an ES6 module system construct, it's not Ember-specific. Playing with the ES6 module transpiler can give you a good sense of what goes in and what comes out in "we can do this today" type of JavaScript.
For ember 3.22, application classes can be accessed like so:
Ember.Namespace.NAMESPACES[1]._applicationInstances.values().next().value.lookup('service:state-events')
Note, you may need to modify the index in NAMESPACES[1] to be something other than 1. You can determine which namespace is your application when this returns true:
Ember.Namespace.NAMESPACES[1] instanceof Application
This approach is how ember-inspector accesses ember applications: https://github.com/emberjs/ember-inspector/blob/50db91b7bd26b12098cae774a307208fe0a47d75/ember_debug/main.js#L163-L168
We have a combination of requirements in terms o data access.
Pre-load some reference data.
We need reference data to survive browser restarts instead of just living in memory to avoid loading it all the time. I'm currently using the LocalStorageAdapter for that.
Once we have it, we would like to sync changes (polling or using Socket.IO in the background and updating the LocalStorage could do the trick)
There're other models that are more transactional, where we would need to directly go to the Server and get/save them. It would be nice to use something like the RESTAdapter for that.
Lastly, there're some operations that should work off-line and changes should be synced later.
To make it more concrete:
We pre-load vendor and "favorite products" into Local Storage. We work offline with those.
We need to sync server changes to vendor and product information.
If they search the full catalog, that requires them to be online.
When offline, we need to allow users to add something to their cart or even submit and order. We would like to queue this action and submit it when they have an Internet Connection.
So a few questions are derived from this:
Is there a way to user RESTAdapter in combination with LocalStorage?
Is there some Socket.IO support? (Happy to do this part manually)
Is there Queueing support? Ideally at the Ember-Data level.
I know we will have to do a lot of this manually and pull together the different lego pieces, but I wanted to ask for some perspective from experience Ember devs.
You definitely can do this. Like you said you're going to need to do a lot of lego pieces to put it all together.
You'll need to take the RESTAdapter and LSAdapter and create a hybrid. We've done something a little similar at my work, but it only goes one way (from server to client, not reverse).
That being said, I'd just like to pose a few questions:
How much do you plan on storing in localStorage, and do you have an eviction plan in place? Local Storage is generally small for most browsers, though the implementation is the same across most browsers (not implemented until IE8). IndexedDB gives you a much larger chunk of space, though implementation isn't available until later versions of IE.
Depending on performance needs, I'd recommend storing localStorage first, then attempting to persist to the server, if that works pop from localStorage, if it doesn't leave it in there for your adapter to attempt at a later date. (I'd look into using Ember's schedule or scheduleOnce or a slew of other convenient helpers that work within the run loop, http://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.run.html#method_schedule).
Called by the store when a newly created record is
`save`d.
It serializes the record, and `POST`s it to a URL generated by `buildURL`.
See `serialize` for information on how to customize the serialized form
of a record.
createRecord: function(store, type, record) {
var data = {};
var serializer = store.serializerFor(type.typeKey);
serializer.serializeIntoHash(data, type, record, { includeId: true });
// build up a model that knows the url, the method, and the data to post
// store it to local storage in some queue to save
// schedule it to save to server later, keep track of the record since you'll
// need to update the record with new information later that could come down
// from the server
return this.ajax(this.buildURL(type.typeKey), "POST", { data: data });
},
Honestly I think the most difficult thing you might experience will be how you handle ids when you don't really save it to the server. Good luck
I'm new to the Repository Pattern and after doing a lot of reading on the web I have a rough understanding of what is going on, but there seems to be a conflict of ideas.
One is what the IRepository should return.
I would like to deal in ONLY Pocos so I would have an IRepository implementation for every aggregate root, like so:
public class OrangeRepository: IOrangeRepository
{
public Orange GetOrange(IOrangeCriteria criteria);
}
where IOrangeCriteria takes a number of arguments specific to finding an Orange.
The other thing I have is a number of data back-ends - this is why I got into this pattern in the first place. I imagine I will have an implementation for each, e.g
OrangeRepositoryOracle, OrangeRepositorySQL, OrangeRepositoryMock etc
I would like to keep it open so that I could use EF or NHibernate - again if my IOrangeRepository deals in POCOs then I would encapsulate this within the Repository itself, by implementing a OrangeRepositoryNHibernate etc.
Am I on the right lines?
Thanks
EDIT: Thanks for the feedback, I don't have anyone else to bounce these ideas off at the moment so it is appreciated!
Yes, your version is the safest / most compatible one. You can still use it with about any resources, not only data access ones, but with web services, files, whatever.
Note that with the IQueryable version you still get to work based on your POCOs classes, but you are tied to the IQueryable. Also consider that you could be having code that uses the IQueryable and then turns out it you hit a case where one of the repository's ORM doesn't handle it well.
I use the same pattern as you do. I like it a lot. You can get your data from any resources.
But the advantage of using IQuerable is that you do not have to code your own criteria API like the OrangeCriteria.
When NHibernate gets full Linq support then I may switch to the IQueryable.
Then you get
public class OrangeRepository: IOrangeRepository {
public IQueryable<Orange> GetOranges();
}