by side, the other thought would be: why within ~6 years of NH and ~9 of Hibernate with hundred of thousand applications using both frameworks, nobody needs a such feature ?
That is only my thought each time I'm thinking about a new feature in NH. About revert: Which kind of application are you implementing ? WinForms, WebForms, WPF, MVC, WCF ? (for sure no REST) How you are managing the session ? Why you are changing the state of an entity inside the session if the modification was not confirmed by user ? and so on.... On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM, tz <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting question, and the answer is; yes, I have though about it > very well, and my conclusion is still that there are soo many similar > features in (n)Hibernate to what I want, that with a little bit of > help from an insider with more "architectural knowledge of > (n)Hibernate", this feature should be small in code. "small" when you > know the inside of the product... > > > On May 4, 8:18 pm, Carlos cubas <[email protected]> wrote: > > tz, have you considered that, maybe just maybe, you are swimming in the > wrong direction? by yourself? > > > > -Carlos > > > > Practice makes perfect, but if no one is perfect, why practice? > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 11:49:35 -0700 > > > Subject: [nhusers] Re: Refresh from second level cache > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > "Revert changes with the state of my first load" is what the user > > > thinks when she has changed an entity, but regrets. Thus wants to > > > cancel. However, she doesn't want to be punished by another database > > > hit. I'm sure many other people decide in this case to start a new > > > session or evict the object graph and get it again. All to me sound > > > like a half-baked solution for reasons I've mentioned before. Another > > > half-baked solution is to say that you only change the entities once > > > you're 100% sure (no, I want to "commit" once I'm 100% sure). > > > > > Having said all this, what I want to reach here, completely fits in > > > how I want my application to work. I think it is compatible with UoW > > > and all those other fancy design patterns. This is clearly a missing > > > feature to me. Therefore, I was really hoping for a technical > > > satisfying answer, rather than advocating that I'm doing is something > > > which is not written in one of the tutorials. > > > > > So, please... does anyone know how I could do this trick of reverting > > > changes in a graph? > > > > > On May 4, 7:32 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There is something saying me that your problem is in another place. > > > > "Revert changes with the state of my first load"..... mmmmm > > > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM, tz < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for confirming that. I silently started guessing that the > > > > > Refresh method shouldn't be what I should use. I started writing my > > > > > own "RevertChanges" on a graph, but I'm stuck on how to evict > > > > > collections (plus the attached pending deletes/adds). See my code > > > > > below: > > > > > > > public static class ISessionExtensions > > > > > { > > > > > public static void RevertChanges(this ISession session, > object > > > > > obj) > > > > > { > > > > > var source = session as IEventSource; > > > > > var action = new RevertChangesCascadingAction(); > > > > > > > action.RevertChanges(source, obj); > > > > > } > > > > > > > private class RevertChangesCascadingAction : CascadingAction > > > > > { > > > > > public override void Cascade(IEventSource session, > object > > > > > child, string entityName, object anything, bool > > > > > isCascadeDeleteEnabled) > > > > > { > > > > > DoRevert(session, child); > > > > > } > > > > > public override IEnumerable > > > > > GetCascadableChildrenIterator(IEventSource session, CollectionType > > > > > collectionType, object collection) > > > > > { > > > > > var coll = collection as > > > > > NHibernate.Collection.IPersistentCollection; > > > > > var collectionEntry = > > > > > session.PersistenceContext.GetCollectionEntry(coll); > > > > > > > // TODO: HELP!!! > > > > > //session.Evict(collection); > > > > > //collectionEntry.LoadedPersister.Recreate(coll, > > > > > collectionEntry.LoadedKey, session); > > > > > > > // evicts don't cascade to uninitialized collections > > > > > return GetLoadedElementsIterator(session, > > > > > collectionType, collection); > > > > > } > > > > > public override bool DeleteOrphans > > > > > { > > > > > get { return false; } > > > > > } > > > > > public override bool PerformOnLazyProperty > > > > > { > > > > > get { return false; } > > > > > } > > > > > > > protected void DoRevert(IEventSource session, object > obj) > > > > > { > > > > > EntityEntry entityEntry = GetEntityEntry(session, > > > > > obj); > > > > > > > IEntityPersister persister = entityEntry.Persister; > > > > > EntityMode mode = persister.GuessEntityMode(obj) ?? > > > > > EntityMode.Poco; > > > > > persister.SetPropertyValues(obj, > > > > > entityEntry.LoadedState, mode); > > > > > } > > > > > > > protected EntityEntry GetEntityEntry(IEventSource > session, > > > > > object obj) > > > > > { > > > > > IPersistenceContext context = > > > > > session.PersistenceContext; > > > > > > > if (obj is ValueType) > > > > > return null; > > > > > > > if (context.IsEntryFor(obj) == false) > > > > > return null; > > > > > > > EntityEntry entityEntry = context.GetEntry(obj); > > > > > return entityEntry; > > > > > } > > > > > > > public void RevertChanges(IEventSource session, object > > > > > obj) > > > > > { > > > > > EntityEntry entityEntry = GetEntityEntry(session, > > > > > obj); > > > > > > > DoRevert(session, obj); > > > > > > > session.PersistenceContext.IncrementCascadeLevel(); > > > > > try > > > > > { > > > > > new Cascade(this, CascadePoint.AfterUpdate, > > > > > session).CascadeOn(entityEntry.Persister, obj); > > > > > } > > > > > finally > > > > > { > > > > > > > session.PersistenceContext.DecrementCascadeLevel(); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 7:55 pm, Jason Dentler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Confirmed it with Fabio: "Refresh is an explicit hit to DB" > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:35 AM, tz < > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Transaction over a read didn't help (see reply on Jason > Dentler) > > > > > > > * Second level cache is for sharing data across transactions > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 12:24 pm, John Davidson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > It does not matter what the UoW pattern says about data read. > You > > > > > > > _REALLY_ > > > > > > > > need to put a read action in a NHibernate transaction if you > want to > > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > performance. Not having your reads in a transaction may be > why you > > > > > need a > > > > > > > > second level cache (to compensate for not following the > specified > > > > > rules). > > > > > > > > Most of the transactional databases now wrap a read action in > an ACID > > > > > > > > transaction on their own, if the request is not already in a > > > > > transaction > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > this activity by the database takes more time and resource > than if it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > done in the application with NHibernate and UoW. > > > > > > > > > > John Davidson > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:14 AM, tz < > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. See my comments inline > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:26 pm, Jason Meckley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would approach the problem in a completely different > manner. > > > > > > > > > > 1. no long running sessions > > > > > > > > > > 2. only use 2nd level cache in edge cases as a last > resort > > > > > > > > > > 3. for multi-step operations/commands I would use an > intermediate > > > > > DTO > > > > > > > > > > to store updates. When the user clicks "save" is when i > would > > > > > alter > > > > > > > > > > the domain objects. this makes undoing changes much > easier. > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > > abandon the DTO. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure whether you do understand my question, but I > can't > > > > > relate > > > > > > > > > any of your reply to my question. I also don't agree with > what > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > saying... > > > > > > > > > * I don't know what "no long running sessions" would solve > for my > > > > > > > > > issue. All these things you're proposing are a "very > complex" way > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > do Evict/Load on the same session. > > > > > > > > > * 2nd level cache is for performance reasons. The issue I'm > posting > > > > > > > > > about is also for performance reasons. So, this cache stays > > > > > > > > > * Why would I do any object dirty management myself, if > nHibernate > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > do it for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > if you do continue down this path are all your session > calls > > > > > > > happening > > > > > > > > > > within a transaction? Proper use of NH dictates that all > > > > > operations, > > > > > > > > > > both read and write, should happen within at transaction. > This is > > > > > > > > > > critical for client POIDs, proper UOW management and 2nd > level > > > > > cache. > > > > > > > > > > > Again, no answer on my question. Even more, I don't agree > with > > > > > you... > > > > > > > > > * UoW pattern doesn't say that a read should be in a ACID > > > > > transaction. > > > > > > > > > UoW itself is a "business transaction" implementation, > which is > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > optimistic concurrency ideologies (meaning that you > shouldn't keep > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > ACID transaction open between the reads and the writes). > > > > > > > > > > > What I want is simply a Update() which does what Evict/Load > does, > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > not with giving me a new instance. That's all I'd want to > know. I > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > nH keeps the original state in the session (and the second > level > > > > > > > > > cache), so it shouldn't be that difficult I assume. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 2:05 pm, tz < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working with a long running session which contains > all my > > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > > > > data. Further, I use level 2 cache intensively, to > cache that > > > > > > > > > > > information. I let my user edit this data directly > using UI > > > > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The user can decide to cancel the modifications, which > I though > > > > > I'd > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nhusers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > > -- Fabio Maulo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
