Sep
6
2009
Since this is the first interlude, let me explain what an interlude is. I have the main series of articles for this blog planned out, but every so often I will feel the need to jump ahead and give a small sample of what I will be posting about in the future. This can be triggered by a tweet, a post in the message boards, or a passing thoughts catches my fancy.
This particular interlude is about terminology. In RIA Services, every entity should be considered a top level entity. There is no such thing as a parent child relationship in RIA Services; all entities are equal to each other. The hows and whys of this I will cover in the EntityContainer/EntityList series. The point is, the correct terminology should be Entity and Associated Entities, not Parent and Children.
Why is this important?
When we talk about a parent/child releationship there are certain preconceptions we bring to the table. For example, we would expect that the child cannot exist without the parent. We would call such an object an “orphan”. In RIA Services, as there are no children, there are no orphans. If you delete the “parent” the “children” are still tracked in their respective EntityList, all that happened is that the key value that uses to be shared with the deleted entity was cleared severing the association. Granted, you may or may not fail a foreign key check when you get back to the database but that is a matter of correct programming.
This goes back to swo’s question back on the EntityCollection where he asked why the Add and Remove methods were designed in the way that they were. The answer is here in the question of naming. If you use the words parent and child then removing the child from the parent would seem to imply that the child should be deleted. However, if you use the words Entity and Associated Entity that removing the Associated Entity from the Entity would indicate that you are simply severing the association. As are most things are in programming, it is all about finding the proper names for things so that we can correctly understand concepts.
Ok, one thing on why RIA Services is designed this way
RIA Services is actually designed to work a lot like a database does. If you created a SQL Database where all of the foreign keys were nullable and you had cascading turned on you would have something that would act a lot like RIA Services does. That database design would have the virtue of being able to model and other database design that you can come up with in SQL Server. Just something to think about.
(Do not actually go and design a database that way, what works really well for a data model works horribly for an actual database.)