In my obsolate procedural code (which I'd like now to translate into OOP) I have simple database transaction code like this:
mysql_query("BEGIN");
mysql_query("INSERT INTO customers SET cid=$cid,cname='$cname'");
mysql_query("INSERT INTO departments SET did=$did,dname='$dname'");
mysql_query("COMMIT");
If I build OOP classes Customer and Department for mapping customers and departments database tables I can insert table records like:
$customer=new Customer();
$customer->setId($cid);
$customer->setName($cname);
$customer->save();
$department=new Department();
$department->setId($did);
$department->setName($dname);
$department->save();
My Customer and Department classes internally use other DB class for querying database.
But how to make $customer.save() and $department.save() parts of a database transaction?
Should I have one outer class starting/ending transaction with Customer and Department classes instantiated in it or transaction should be started somehow in Customer (like Customer.startTransaction()) and ended in Department (like Department.endTransaction())? Or...
Additional object is the way to go. Something like this:
$customer=new Customer();
$customer->setId($cid);
$customer->setName($cname);
$department=new Department();
$department->setId($did);
$department->setName($dname);
$transaction = new Transaction();
$transaction->add($customer);
$transaction->add($department);
$transaction->commit();
You can see that there is no call to save() method on $customer and $department anymore. $transaction object takes care of that.
Implementation can be as simple as this:
class Transaction
{
private $stack;
public function __construct()
{
$this->stack = array();
}
public function add($entity)
{
$this->stack[] = $entity;
}
public function commit()
{
mysql_query("BEGIN");
foreach ($this->stack as $entity) {
$entity->save();
}
mysql_query("COMMIT");
}
}
How to make $customer.save() and $department.save() parts of a database transaction?
You don't have to do anything besides start the transaction.
In most DBMS interfaces, the transaction is "global" to the database connection. If you start a transaction, then all subsequent work is automatically done within the scope of that transaction. If you commit, you have committed all changes since the last transaction BEGIN. If you rollback, you discard all changes since the last BEGIN (there's also an option to rollback to the last transaction savepoint).
I've only used one database API that allowed multiple independent transactions to be active per database connection simultaneously (that was InterBase / Firebird). But this is so uncommon, that standard database interfaces like ODBC, JDBC, PDO, Perl DBI just assume that you only get one active transaction per db connection, and all changes happen within the scope of the one active transaction.
Should I have one outer class starting/ending transaction with Customer and Department classes instantiated in it or transaction should be started somehow in Customer (like Customer.startTransaction()) and ended in Department (like Department.endTransaction())? Or...
You should start a transaction, then invoke domain model classes like Customer and Department, then afterwards, either commit or rollback the transaction in the calling code.
The reason for this is that domain model methods can call other domain model methods. You never know how many levels deep these calls go, so it's really difficult for the domain model to know when it's time to commit or rollback.
For some pitfalls of doing this, see How do detect that transaction has already been started?
But they don't have to know that. Customer and Department should just do their work, inserting and deleting and updating as needed. Once they are done, the calling code decides if it wants to commit or rollback the whole set of work.
In a typical PHP application, a transaction is usually the same amount of work as one PHP request. It's possible, though uncommon, to do more than one transaction during a given PHP request, and it's not possible for a transaction to span across multiple PHP requests.
So the simple answer is that your PHP script should start a transaction near the beginning of the script, before invoking any domain model classes, then commit or rollback at the end of the script, or once the domain model classes have finished their work.
You are migrating to OOP, and thats great, but soon you will find yourself migrating to an arquitecture with a well diferenciated Data Access Layer, including a more complex way of separating data from control. Now, i guess you are using some kind of Data access object, that is a great first approach pattern, but for sure you can go further. Some of the answer here already lead you in that direction. You shouldent think in your objects as the basis of your arquitecture, and use some helper objects to query database. Instead, you should think about a fully featured layer, with all required generic classes that takes care of the comunication with the database, that you will use in all your projects, and then have the business-level-objects, like customer or department, than know as litle as possible about database implementations.
For this, for sure you will have an outer class handling transactions, but probably also other taking care of security, other for building queries providing a unique api regardless or the database engine, and even more, a class that reads objects in order to put them in the database, so the object itself doesn't even know that it is meant to end in a database.
Achieve this, would be a hard and long work, but after that, you could have a custom and widely reusable layer that will make your projects more escalable, more stable, and more trustable. And that will be great and you will learn a lot and after that you would fill quite good. You will have some kind of DBAL or ORM.
But that wouldnt also be the best solution, since there are people that already have been years doing that, and it will be hard to achieve what the already have.
So, what i recommend, for any medium size project, is that you take data base abstraction as serious as you can, and any opensource ORM, that happens to be easy to use, and finally you will save time and get a system much better.
for example, doctrine has a very nice way of handling transactions and concurrency, in two ways: implicit, taking automatically care of the normal operations, or implicit, when you need to take over and control transaction demarcation yourself. check it out here. Also, there are some other complex posibilities like transaction nesting, and others.
The most famous and reliable ORM are
Doctrine, and
Propel
I use doctrine mostly, since it has a module to integrate with Zend Framework 2 that i like, but propel has some aspects that i like a lot.
Probably you would have to refactor somethings, and you dont feel like doing it at this point, but i can say for my experience, that this is one of those things you dont even want to think about, and years after you start using it and realize how you wasted time :-)recommend you to consider this if not know, in your very next project.
UPDATE
Some thoughts after Tomas' comment.
It's true that for not so big projects (especially if you are not very familiar with orms, or your model is very complex) it can be a big effort to integrate a vendor orm.
But what i can say after years developing projects of any size, is that for any medium size one, i would use at least a custom, less serious and more flexible home-made orm, with a sort of generic classes, and as few as possible business oriented repositories, where an entity knows its table, and probably other related tables, and where you can encapsulate some sql or custom query function calls, but all around that entity (for example the main table of the entity, the table of pictures associated to that entity, and so) in order to provide to the controller a single interface to the data, so at any range the database engine is independent of the API of the model, and as much important as that, the controller doesn't have to be aware of any DBMS aspects, like the use of a transactions, something that is meant just to ensure a behavior that is purely model-related, and in a scandalous low level: related pretty much to DBMS technical needs. i mean, your controller could know that it is storing stuff in a database, but for sure it doesn't have to even know what a transaction is.
For sure this is a philosophical discussion, and it could be many equally valid points of view.
For any custom ORM, i would recommend to start looking for some DAO/DTO generator that can help you to create the main classes from your database, so you only need to adapt them to your needs at the points where you find exceptions to the normal behavior of a normal create-read-update-delete. This reminds me that you can also look for PHP CRUD and find some useful and fun tools.
I started some time working with the Yii Framework and I saw some things "do not let me sleep." Here I talk about my doubts about how Yii users use the Active Record.
I saw many people add business rules of the application directly in Active Record, the same generated by Gii. I deeply believe that this is a misinterpretation of what is Active Record and a violation of SRP.
Early on, SRP is easier to apply. ActiveRecord classes handle persistence, associations and not much else. But bit-by-bit, they grow. Objects that are inherently responsible for persistence become the de facto owner of all business logic as well. And a year or two later you have a User class with over 500 lines of code, and hundreds of methods in it’s public interface. Callback hell ensues.
When I talked about it with some people and my view was criticized. But when asked:
And when you need to regenerate your Active Record full of business rules through Gii what do you do? Rewrite? Copy and Paste? That's great, congratulations!
Got an answer, only the silence.
So, I:
What I am currently doing in order to reach a little better architecture is to generate the Active Records in a folder /ar. And inside the /models folder add the Domain Model.
By the way, is the Domain Model who owns the business rules, and is the Domain Model that uses the Active Records to persist and retrieve data, and this is the Data Model.
What do you think of this approach?
If I'm wrong somewhere, please tell me why before criticizing harshly.
Some of the comments on this article are quite helpful:
http://blog.codeclimate.com/blog/2012/10/17/7-ways-to-decompose-fat-activerecord-models/
In particular, the idea that your models should grow out of a strictly 'fat model' setup as you need more seems quite wise.
Are you having issues now or mainly trying to plan ahead? This may be hard to plan ahead for and may just need refactoring as you go ...
Edit:
Regarding moveUserToGroup (in your comment below), I could see how having that might bother you. Found this as I was thinking about your question: https://gist.github.com/justinko/2838490 An equivalent setup that you might use for your moveUserToGroup would be a CFormModel subclass. It'll give you the ability to do validations, etc, but could then be more specific to what you're trying to handle (and use multiple AR objects to achieve your objectives instead of just one).
I often use CFormModel to handle forms that have multiple AR objects or forms where I want to do other things.
Sounds like that may be what you're after. More details available here:
http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/guide/1.1/en/form.overview
The definition of Active Record, according to Martin Fowler:
An object carries both data and behavior. Much of this data is persistent and needs to be stored in a database. Active Record uses the most obvious approach, putting data access logic in the domain object. This way all people know how to read and write their data to and from the database.
When you segregate data and behavior you no longer have an Active Record. Two common related patterns are Data Mapper and Table/Row Gateway (this one more related to RDBMS's).
Again, Fowler says:
The Data Mapper is a layer of software that separates the in-memory objects from the database. Its responsibility is to transfer data between the two and also to isolate them from each other. With Data Mapper the in-memory objects needn't know even that there's a database present; they need no SQL interface code, and certainly no knowledge of the database schema.
And again:
A Table Data Gateway holds all the SQL for accessing a single table or view: selects, inserts, updates, and deletes. Other code calls its methods for all interaction with the database.
A Row Data Gateway gives you objects that look exactly like the record in your record structure but can be accessed with the regular mechanisms of your programming language. All details of data source access are hidden behind this interface.
A Data Mapper is usualy storage independent, the mapper recovers data from the storage and creates mapped objects (Plain-old objects). The mapped object knows absolutely nothing about being stored somewhere else.
As I said, TDG/RDG are more inwardly related to a relational table. TDG object represents the structure of the table and implements all common operations. RGD object contains data related to one single row of the table. Unlike mapped object of Data Mapper, the RDG object has conscience that it is part of a whole, because it references its container TDG.
This is a long running question that gets me every time I am developing.
I suppose it is not specific to CodeIgniter, but as I am using it, I will consider it in my example.
Firstly, which is better:
function add_entry($data_array)
{
//code to add entry
}
function edit_entry($data_array)
{
//code to update entry
}
OR
function save_changes($what,$data_array)
{
//if what == update update
//otherwise insert
}
Both produce the same action, but does it really matter which one you use?
Getting onto more complicated things.
I have a page where I need to get ONE entry from the database.
I also have a page where I need to get all the entries from the same database ordered by a user specified column.
My resultant method is a function similar to
function($data_array,$order_by='',$limit='')
{
//get where $data_array
//if order_by!='' add order by
//if limit !='' add limit
}
As I develop my application and realise new places where I need 'similar' database functionality I am what feels like hacking previous methods so they work with all my case scenarios. The methods end up containing lots of conditional statements, and getting quite complex with in some cases 4 or 5 input parameters.
Have I missed the point? I don't want duplicate code, and when for the most part the functions are very similar I feel like this 'hacking' methodology works best.
Could someone advise?
Finally my admin functionality is part of the same application in an admin controller. I have an admin model which contains specific methods for admin db interaction. I however use some model functionality from 'user' models.
FOr example if on an admin page I need to get details of a db entry I may load the user model to access this function. There is nothing wrong/insecure about this..? right?
In addition to that within my admin model itself I need to get data about a user database entry so I call my user model directly from my admin model. This is strictly OK, but why? If i need data and there is already a method in my user model which gets it.. it seems a little pointless to rewrite the code in the admin model BUT each time that function is called does it load the whole user model again?
Thanks a lot all.
In order, add edit in the model vs save. Personally I have a save built in MY_Model that chooses whether it is a save or an edit depending on the existence of a primary key in the data being passed, so obviously I prefer that method it means a lot less duplication of code since I can use the save for any table without having functions in the model at all.
As to the second question I think it depends on situation. I also have a number of functions that have a ton of conditionals on them depending on where they're used and for what. In some cases I'm finding this makes the legibility of the code a little rough. If you're running them all through if statements it also could be impacting performance. DRY is a concept, not a rule and like other design concepts there are times when they just don't make sense, it's like database normalization, it's my personal opinion it's VERY easy to over normalize a database and destroy performance and usability.
Finally, using user functions in the admin code. I don't see an issue here at all, the reverse probably isn't true, but rewriting a function just because it's an "admin" function, when it's identical to a user function is utterly pointless. So you're correct there, it's a waste of time and space.
We are now in a situation on a project that we need manipulate multiple user entities at once. By example we will disable 50 users at once. Normally we did that in a gateway
Gateway
Query the data at once by the gateway with a query
OR
Loop through multiple users
Load entity
Manipulate data
validate
save()
But that is not the best practice solution.
The first option overrule the possibility to validate the data.
The second is not good performing, because we need iterate the entity for all users
What do you suggest? We want a fast solution, but also a save solution
Hope someone know the right solution. Thanks!
When we use the
You need an Object Realational Mapper (ORM) that has the feature to load those multiple users that match the loop at once so the load is reduced.
Similar for the save operation at the end. All changed entities should be stored at once with a unit of work.
Check the product documentation of the ORM you're using or contact it's vendor to find out which features it offers to support your development.
I would suggest the first option. Updating them all at once in a single query. But you don't state what kind of data validation you would like to do. Maybe you could start a database transaction and issue a second query to validate the result of your 'user disable query' before committing?
I'm working on a Magento module and need to know if it's possible to roll back a series of model saves. Basically, I have five models plus several from my module that I need to save one after the other:
admin/role
admin/user
core/website
core/store_group
core/store
mymodule/model1
mymodule/model2
My problem is that whenever any of these models throw an exception, I need to go into MySQL and manually delete all the rows that were saved. This is very unproductive.
I'm pretty sure that Magento doesn't have a rollback procedure that I can access in my context. For example, I looked in Mage_Core_Model_Abstract and in the save method, the rollback mechanisms are all protected.
So, my question is, is there some best practice for doing database transactions in Magento that I should be aware of?
I've seen the following used in core code, and it looks like its just what you ordered.
$transactionSave = Mage::getModel('core/resource_transaction');
$transactionSave->addObject($model_one)
$transactionSave->addObject($model_two)
$transactionSave->save();
The core/resource_transaction object allows you to add Magento objects, and perform a mass save on them. Give that a try, and I'd love to hear how this does, or doesn't, work for you in the comments.