How can an object-oriented programmer get his/her head around database-driven programming?

Question

I have been programming in C# and Java for a little over a year and have a decent grasp of object oriented programming, but my new side project requires a database-driven model.

Answer 1

Linq to SQL using a table per class solution:

http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/bursteg/archive/2007/10/01/linq-to-sql-inheritance.aspx

Other solutions (such as my favorite, LLBLGen) allow other models. Personally, I like the single table solution with a discriminator column, but that is probably because we often query across the inheritance hierarchy and thus see it as the normal query, whereas querying a specific type only requires a "where" change.

All said and done, I personally feel that mapping OO into tables is putting the cart before the horse. There have been continual claims that the impedance mismatch between OO and relations has been solved... and there have been plenty of OO specific databases. None of them have unseated the powerful simplicity of the relation.

Instead, I tend to design the database with the application in mind, map those tables to entities and build from there. Some find this as a loss of OO in the design process, but in my mind the data layer shouldn't be talking high enough into your application to be affecting the design of the higher order systems, just because you used a relational model for storage.

Answer 2

Frameworks such as

1. Hibernate http://www.hibernate.org/
2. JPA http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/J2EE/jpa/

can help you to smoothly solve this problem of inheritance. e.g. http://www.java-tips.org/java-ee-tips/enterprise-java-beans/inheritance-and-the-java-persistenc.html

Answer 3

The big question: how can you get your head around it? It just takes practice. You try implementing a database design, run into problems with your design, you refactor and remember for next time what worked and what didn't.

To answer your specific questions... this is a little bit of opinion thrown in, as in "how I would do it", not taking into account performance needs and such. I always start fully normalized and go from there based on real-world testing:

Table Event
EventID
Title
StartDateTime
EndDateTime

Table ShiftEvent
ShiftEventID
EventID
ShiftSpecificProperty1

...

Table Product
ProductID
Name

Table Category
CategoryID
Name

Table CategoryProduct
CategoryID
ProductID

Also reiterating what Pierre said - an ORM tool like Hibernate makes dealing with the friction between relational structures and OO structures much nicer.

Answer 4

I had the opposite problem: how to get my head around OO after years of database design. Come to that, a decade earlier I had the problem of getting my head around SQL after years of "structured" flat-file programming. There are jsut enough similarities betwwen class and data entity decomposition to mislead you into thinking that they're equivalent. They aren't.

I tend to agree with the view that once you're committed to a relational database for storage then you should design a normalised model and compromise your object model where unavoidable. This is because you're more constrained by the DBMS than you are with your own code - building a compromised data model is more likley to cause you pain.

That said, in the examples given, you have choices: if ShiftEvent and StaffEvent are mostly similar in terms of attributes and are often processed together as Events, then I'd be inclined to implement a single Events table with a type column. Single-table views can be an effective way to separate out the sub-classes and on most db platforms are updatable. If the classes are more different in terms of attributes, then a table for each might be more appropriate. I don't think I like the three-table idea:"has one or none" relationships are seldom necessary in relational design. Anyway, you can always create an Event view as the union of the two tables.

As to Product and Category, if one Category can have many Products, but not vice versa, then the normal relational way to represent this is for the product to contain a category id. Yes, it's coupling, but it's only data coupling, and it's not a mortal sin. The column should probably be indexed, so that it's efficient to retrieve all products for a category. If you're really horrified by the notion then pretend it's a many-to-many relationship and use a separate ProductCategorisation table. It's not that big a deal, although it implies a potential relationship that doesn't really exist and might mislead somone coming to the app in future.

Answer 5

In my opinion, these paradigms (the Relational Model and OOP) apply to different domains, making it difficult (and pointless) to try to create a mapping between them.

The Relational Model is about representing facts (such as "A is a person"), i.e. intangible things that have the property of being "unique". It doesn't make sense to talk about several "instances" of the same fact - there is just the fact.

Object Oriented Programming is a programming paradigm detailing a way to construct computer programs to fulfill certain criteria (re-use, polymorphism, information hiding...). An object is typically a metaphor for some tangible thing - a car, an engine, a manager or a person etc. Tangible things are not facts - there may be two distinct objects with identical state without them being the same object (hence the difference between equals and == in Java, for example).

Spring and similar tools provide access to relational data programmatically, so that the facts can be represented by objects in the program. This does not mean that OOP and the Relational Model are the same, or should be confused with eachother. Use the Realational Model to design databases (collections of facts) and OOP to design computer programs.

TL;DR version (Object-Relational impedance mismatch distilled):

Facts = the recipe on your fridge. Objects = the content of your fridge.

Answer 6

I guess a bit of pragmatism would be good here. Mappings between objects and tables always have a bit of strangeness here and there. Here's what I do:

I use Ibatis to talk to my database (Java to Oracle). Whenever I have an inheretance structure where I want a subclass to be stored in the database, I use a "discriminator". This is a trick where you have one table for all the Classes (Types), and have all fields which you could possibly want to store. There is one extra column in the table, containing a string which is used by Ibatis to see which type of object it needs to return.

It looks funny in the database, and sometimes can get you into trouble with relations to fields which are not in all Classes, but 80% of the time this is a good solution.

Regarding your relation between category and product, I would add a categoryId column to the product, because that would make life really easy, both SQL wise and Mapping wise. If you're really stuck on doing the "theoretically correct thing", you can consider an extra table which has only 2 colums, connecting the Categories and their products. It will work, but generally this construction is only used when you need many-to-many relations.

Try to keep it as simple as possible. Having a "academic solution" is nice, but generally means a bit of overkill and is harder to refactor because it is too abstract (like hiding the relations between Category and Product).

I hope this helps.