We Keep Coding

Tracking Changes done to a Class without using Entity Framework

I am in need of tracking any changes done to a complex model (a very complex model must I say with all kinds of relationships). Once I have identified these changes, I must save them into a separate table, in order to be approved by an administrator at a later stage.
I've tried using the change tracker of Entity Framework and have even tried to customize it but it has just been giving me problem after problem.
What do you suggest I could use in order to track these changes, which does not involve Entity Framework?
UPDATE: I ended up solving this by creating my own custom checker. Took more time but in the end it was more worth it as I had total control over the changes.
Thanks for you opinions,
Steve :)

Sorry for not providing code example. As commented this is more of an idea (to broad for this Exchange) but it is a high level way that I have done before. Back when "reflection" was highly frowned upon we called it "meta data" but essentially employed reflection - and for that reason, today it is known as meta programming.
Your problem, is a lovely use case for meta programming. Reflection used to be very slow in "80's" only due to low memory and restricted CPU.
Serialises, such as JSON use reflection or the infamously slow XML (but not anymore)
Dependency Injection is the mother of meta programming
Helpers like auto mapper is mostly reflection too.
Today it has been highly optimised and works extremly well due to excellent computational power. As long as you do not write hacky code, or try to optimise it further you will be OK. You should trust the framework and compilers for that.
You can do some fancy things such as intercepting changes but that can get quite complex. To keep it a bit simpler all you have to do is follow a bit of DDD
Your classes should only allow changes via the properties you expose. Each Set or operation that mutates the state can then be sent your lovely state tracking code.
in NET 4.5 reflection is really fast and meta programming is already used in Dependency Injection allover the show.
To remember changes use an optimised collection like maybe a Dictionary or HashSet. Depends on your needs. Using GetType store that as the key and the value can be the new value, or a class that hold metadata like. Old Value, New Value, Version (for rolling back), etc etc.
Once you get that going in your class you then move all the logic into singleton, and define some generic methods that you will reuse on all your "entities"

Which serialization to use for my c# objects to save them in a SQL database

I'm looking for some advice, it may be that there is no hard and fast answer but any thoughts are appreciated. The application is very typical. Its a c# code, currently using VS2010. This code is used amongst other things for providing data from a model to end users. The model itself is based on some known data at fixed points (a "cube") various parameters and settings. In standard programming practice the user accesses the data via public "get" functions which in turn rely on private member variables such as the known data and the settings. So far so standard. Now I want to save the class providing this data to the users into an sql database - primarily so all users can share the same data (or more precisely model generated data).
Of course I could just take each member variable of the class and write these into the db using sql database and reinstantiate the class from these. But I dont want to miss out on all the goodies .net & c# has to offer. So what I'm thinking of doing is serializing the object and using linq to sql to squirt this into the db. The linq to sql section is straightforward, but I'm a total newbie when it comes to serialization and I'm a bit concerned/confused about it. It seems the obvious thing is to format the object into xml and write this into the database as a column in the table with sql datatype "xml". But that leaves me with a few questions.
To my understanding the standard XMLserializer will only write the public members of the class into the xml. That looks like a non-starter to me since my class design is predicated on keeping much of the class private (writing classes with all public members is outside of my experience - who does that ?). This has led me to consider the DataContractSerializer in which you can opt-in variables for serialization. However this seems to have some WCF dependencies and I'm wondering what are the potential drawbacks of using it. Additionally there is the SoapFormatter, which seems to be more prevalent for web applications and also JSON. I'm not really considering these, but maybe I should ? Maybe there are better ways of solving the problem ? Perhaps a bit verbose but hopefully all the context can help so people can shoot me some advice.

I have had requirements similar to yours and have done quite a bit of research in this area. I did a number of proof-of-concept projects using XMLSerialization, JSON, BinraryFormatter and not to forget some home grown hacks. I had almost decided to go with JSON (JSON.NET), until I found protobuf-net! It is fast, small in size, version independent, supports inheritance and easy to implement without much changes to your code. Recommend heavily.

If you store an object as XML, it will be very hard to use from the database. For example, if you store customer objects as XML, how would you write the following?
select * from Customers where LastName = 'Obama'
It can be done, but it's not easy.
How to map objects to a database is a subject of some controversy. Frameworks that are easy to get started with can become overly complex in the application's later life. Since most applications spend more time in maintenance than in initial development, I'd use the simplest model that works.
Plain ADO.NET or Dapper are good contenders. You'll write a bit more boilerplate code, but the decrease in complexity more than makes up for that.

Issues with Orchard CMS

I have researched for some time the Orchard CMS and I'm pleased with some of his futures but also I have some issues that I don't know how to deal with them:
All the items (content type) are linear and they don't support a tree like data structure
(Ex: books > titles > web-links)
One of the big problem (depending how you see things) is that the model and the view for the items are coupled (content part > driver with display / editor views)
So for a new page the model, view and position are locked and you can have only one view of the model.
Use of advance language futures the are not suited for beginner developers and are not very clear (dynamic functions, clay objects - nice future, ...)
// Creating table VPlayerRecord
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("VPlayerRecord", table => table
.ContentPartRecord()
.Column("Title", DbType.String)
.Column("VideoUrl", DbType.String)
.Column("WidthPx", DbType.Double)
.Column("HeightPx", DbType.Double)
);
This syntax is not very clear for beginner developers and is a bit over engineered. Also because the model is a dynamic object in the view we don't have any intellisense support.
To build a new page we have something like three degree of separation (3 projects)
Build a content part module
Build a content type
Build a theme module
How do you overcome these issues in your projects with Orchard CMS? and what other issues have you found and fixes :)

read this: http://orchardproject.net/docs/Creating-1-n-and-n-n-relations.ashx and this: http://orchardproject.net/docs/Creating-lists.ashx
How is this a problem and why do you see this as coupling? What alternative do you see?
Where do you see this as a problem and how has it blocked you?
edit on 2: it is not true that you can have only one view of the model. You can have any number of display types. For example, the summary view of items is handled this way. You also have display types for admin views, and you can add your own.
Not sure what you mean by "position is locked". If we mean the same thing by position, I'm puzzled by how you could have gotten such an idea. Relative positioning of parts and fields can be changed through placement.info.
edit on 3: even with this example, I'm not sure what would be difficult here. This is fairly expressive imo. Were you confused yourself or are you just assuming people would be?
You are claiming that this is over-engineered. How would you simplify it then? What feature do you think is not needed?
You don't get IntelliSense in views on model objects but the flexibility you gain by doing so justifies it by a very large margin. Ask anyone who's been making real use of it.
new 4th point: I can't see a reason why you would separate that into three modules or why you think you should. I've certainly never seen an example of that. I would also point out that creating a part and a type are often done by two different people (a type creator is often just a consumer of existing parts). But again you don't have to separate them into different modules.
A theme is clearly a different concern from the two others and makes sense to be a separate project but a theme can come with code and can actually in principle do everything a module is doing. So if you want to package a part, type and theme into a single package, you could do that. It wouldn't make a lot of sense but you could.
Finally, I don't see how any of those four points are related to page creation.

Orchard has to be taken as a challenge. As a beginner I have quickly built a few sites with ease. After that the learning curve became steeper. I've read many articles on the subject, numerous times.
I have used some CMS's before and had some knowledge what is the nature of managing content. Learning Orchard opened a whole new definition of content management. Now I can think of solving some everyday tasks and various business processes by implementing Orchard.
The whole thing is built in a very abstract layer, forcing you to think abstract too. If you follow this way, there are many blog posts, as well as official documentation to help you.
There are few basic building blocks and concepts that can be used like a bricks. Sounds like a phrase, I've heard it hunderts of times. I have also seen thousands of houses built from red square bricks, and they were all different, while the bricks were all equal. Such things can be accomplished with Orchard.
Read and understand the programming patterns. They are essential part of knowledge that will help you in solving Orchard based tasks. They will also help you change the way you are accomplishing your non Orchard related tasks.
I would say, there are two basic areas one need to understand. Storing and retreiving the piece of content is one, while presenting it to the crowd is the other. It might look difficult, it is difficult, but the goodies behind are delightfull. Not to mention great guys, some from evil empire, some not, that will certainly help you along the way. Not to forget, git's are your best friend. There are many wheels already invented. Caution, neither comes with free lunch.
P.S. I haven't write such a long post since usenet times. It might not be suitable for a site like this. It's kind a way to give a thanks to this French guy, and to all other Orchard evangelists from Poland, over Cyprus to the States. They saved my ass in many occasions.

Applicable design patterns

I must develop a simple web application to produce reports. I have a single table "contract" and i must return very simple aggregated values : number of documents produced in a time range, average number of pages for documents and so on . The table gets filled by a batch application, users will have roles that will allow them to see only a part of the reports (if they may be called so ).
My purpose is :
develop a class, which generates the so called reports, opened to future extension (adding new methods to generate new reports for different roles must be easy )
decouple the web graphic interface from the database access
I'm evaluating various patterns : decorator, visitor, ... but being the return data so simple i cannot evaluate which apply or even if its the case to use one. Moreover i must do it i less than 5 days. It can be done if i make a so called "smart gui" but as told at point 1, i don't want to get troubles when new roles or method will be added.
thank you for your answers.
I'm sorry, i realize i haven't provided too much infos. I live in a Dilbert world. at the moment i've got the following info : db will be oracle (the concrete db doesn't exist yet) , so no EF, maybe linqtodataset (but i'm new to linq). About new features of the application,due to pravious experiences, the only thing i wish is not to be obliged to propagate changes over the whole application, even if it's simple. that are the reasons i've thougth to design patterns (note i've said "if it's the case" in my question) .
I'll KISS it and then will refactor it if needed , as suggested by ladislav mrnka, but i still appreciate any suggestion on how to keep opened to extension the data gathering class

KISS - keep it simple and stupid. You have five days. Create working application and if you have time refactor it to some better solution.

The road to good code is not paved with design patterns.
Good code is code that is readable, maintainable, robust, compatible and future-proof.
Don’t get me wrong: Design patterns are a great thing because they help categorise, and thus teach, the experience that earlier generations of programmers have accrued. Each design pattern once solved a problem in a way that was not only novel and creative, but also good. The corrolary is not that a design pattern is necessarily good code when applied to any other problem.
Good code requires experience and insight. This includes experience with design patterns, and insight into their applicability and their downsides and pitfalls.
That said, my recommendation in your specific case is to learn about the recommended practice regarding web interfaces, database access, etc. Most C# programmers write web applications in ASP.NET; tend to use LINQ-to-Entities or LINQ-to-SQL for database access; and use Windows Forms or WPF for a desktop GUI. Each of these may or may not fulfill the requirements of your particular project. Only you can tell.

How about you use strategy pattern for the retrieving data? And use interfaces like following to keep it extendable at all times.
IReportFilter: Report filter/criteria set
IReportParams: Gets report parameters
IReportData: Gets the report data in a result set
IReportFormat: Report formatting
IReportRender: Renders the report
Just thinking out loud.

Is my idea for an object persistence library useful?

First, I apologize if this is not an appropriate venue to ask this question, but I wasn't really sure where else to get input from.
I have created an early version of a .NET object persistence library. Its features are:
A very simple interface for persistence of POCOs.
The main thing: support for just about every conceivable storage medium. This would be everything from plain text files on the local filesystem, to embedded systems like SQLite, any standard SQL server (MySQL, postgres, Oracle, SQL Server, whatever), to various NoSQL databases (Mongo, Couch, Redis, whatever). Drivers could be written for nearly anything, so for instance you could fairly easily write a driver where the actual backing store could be a web-service.
When I first had this idea I was convinced it was totally awesome. I quickly created an initial prototype. Now, I'm at the 'hard part' where I am debating issues like connection pooling, thread safety, and debating whether to try to support IQueryable for LINQ, etc. And I'm taking a harder look at whether it is worthwhile to develop this library beyond my own requirements for it.
Here is a basic example of usage:
var to1 = new TestObject { id = "fignewton", number = 100, FruitType = FruitType.Apple };
ObjectStore db = new SQLiteObjectStore("d:/objstore.sqlite");
db.Write(to1);
var readback = db.Read<TestObject>("fignewton");
var readmultiple = db.ReadObjects<TestObject>(collectionOfKeys);
The querying interface that works right now looks like:
var appleQuery = new Query<TestObject>().Eq("FruitType", FruitType.Apple).Gt("number",50);
var results = db.Find<TestObject>(appleQuery);
I am also working on an alternative query interface that lets you just pass in something very like a SQL WHERE clause. And obviously, in the NET world it would be great to support IQueryable / expression trees.
Because the library supports many storage mediums with disparate capabilities, it uses attributes to help the system make the best use of each driver.
[TableName("AttributeTest")]
[CompositeIndex("AutoProperty","CreatedOn")]
public class ComplexTypesObject
{
[Id]
public string id;
[QueryableIndexed]
public FruitType FruitType;
public SimpleTypesObject EmbeddedObject;
public string[] Array;
public int AutoProperty { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn = DateTime.Now;
}
All of the attributes are optional, and are basically all about performance. In a simple case you don't need any of them.
In a SQL environment, the system will by default take care of creating tables and indexes for you, though there is a DbaSafe option that will prevent the system from executing DDLs.
It is also fun to be able to migrate your data from, say, a SQL engine to MongoDB in one line of code. Or to a zip file. And back again.
OK, The Question:
The root question is "Is this useful?" Is it worth taking the time to really polish, make thread-safe or connection pooled, write a better query interface, and upload somewhere?
Is there another library already out there that already does something like this, NAMELY, providing a single interface that works across multiple data sources (beyond just different varieties of SQL)?
Is it solving a problem that needs to be solved, or has someone else already solved it better?
If I proceed, how do you go about trying to make your project visible?
Obviously this isn't a replacement for ORMs (and it can co-exist with ORMs, and coexist with your traditional SQL server). I guess its main use cases are for simple persistence where an ORM is overkill, or for NoSQL type scenarios and where a document-store type interface is preferable.

My advice: Write it for your own requirements and then open-source it. You'll soon find out if there's a market for it. And, as a bonus, you'll find that other people will tell you which bits need polishing; there's a very high chance they'll polish it for you.

Ben, I think it's awesome. At the very least post it to CodePlex and share with the rest of the world. I'm quite sure there are developers out there who can use an object persistence framework (or help polish it up).

For what its worth I think its a great idea.
But more importantly, you've chosen a project (in my opinion) that will undoubtedly improve your code construction and design chops. It is often quite difficult to find projects that both add value while improving your skills.
At least complete it to your initial requirents and then open source it. Anything after that it is a bonus!

While I think the idea is intriguing, and could be useful, I am not sure what long-term value it may hold. Given the considerable advances with EF v4 recently, including things like Code-Only, true POCO support, etc. achieving what you are talking about is actually not that difficult with EF. I am a true believer in Code-Only these days, as it is simple, powerful, and best of all, compile-time checked.
The idea about supporting any kind of data store is intriguing, and something that is worth looking into. However, I think it might be more useful, and reach a considerably broader audience, if you implemented store providers for EF v4, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel that Microsoft has now spent years on. Small projects more often than not grow...and things like pooling, thread safety, LINQ/IQueryable support, etc. become more important...little by little, over time.
By developing EF data store providers for things like SqLite, MongoDB, Xml files or flat files, etc. you add to the capabilities of an existing, familiar, accessible framework, without requiring people to learn an additional one.