CODEWITHSUNDEEP
orm
Crippledsmurf
Crippledsmurf

Reputation: 4012

Should one include ID as a property on objects persisted to a database?

I am creating the model for a web application. The tables have ID fields as primary keys. My question is whether one should define ID as a property of the class?

I am divided on the issue because it is not clear to me whether I should treat the object as a representation of the table structure or whether I should regard the table as a means to persist the object.

If I take the former route then ID becomes a property because it is part of the structure of the database table, however if I take the latter approach then ID could be viewed as a peice of metadata belonging to the database which is not strictly a part of the objects model.

And then we arrive at the middle ground. While the ID is not really a part of the object I'm trying to model, I do realise that the the objects are retrieved from and persisted to the database, and that the ID of an object in the database is critical to many operations of the system so it might be advantageous to include it to ease interactions where an ID is used.

I'm a solo developer, so I'd really like some other, probably more experienced perspectives on the issue

Upvotes: 5

Views: 1725

Answers (6)

Anthony
Anthony

Reputation: 7300

Should the ID in the object read-only or not? In my mind it should be read-only as by definition the ID will never change (as it uniquely identifies a record in the database).
This creates a problem when you create a new object (ID not set yet), save it in the database through a stored procedure which returns the newly created ID then how do you store it back in the object if the ID property is read-only?

Example:
Employee employee = new Employee();
employee.FirstName="John";
employee.LastName="Smith";

EmployeeDAL.Save(employee);

How does the Save method (which actually connects to the database to save the new employee) update the EmployeeId property in the Employee object if this property is read-only (which should be as the EmployeeId will never ever change once it's created).

Upvotes: 1

Dave Sherohman
Dave Sherohman

Reputation: 46187

I'm very much of the mindset that the table is a means to persist the object, but, even so, I always expose the IDs on my objects for two primary reasons:

  1. The database ID is the most convenient way to uniquely identify an object, either within a class (if you're using a per-table serial/autonumber ID) or universally (if you're maintaining a separate "ID-to-class" mapping). In the context of web applications, it makes everything much simpler and more efficient if your forms are able to just specify <input type=hidden name=id value=12345> instead of having to provide multiple fields which collectively contain sufficient information to identify the target object (or, worse, use some scheme to concatenate enough identifying information into a single string, then break it back down when the form is submitted).

  2. It needs to have an ID anyhow in order to maintain a sane database structure and there's no reason not to expose it.

Upvotes: 1

Jeff Meatball Yang
Jeff Meatball Yang

Reputation: 39037

You should have the ID in the object. It is essential.

The easiest use case to give as an example is testing equality:

public bool Equals(Object a, Object b) {  return {a.ID = b.ID}; }

Anything else is subject to errors, and you'll find that out when you start getting primary key violations or start overwriting existing data.

By counterargument:

Say you don't have the ID in the object. Once you change an object, and don't have it's ID from the database, how will you know which record to update?

At the same time, you should note that the operations I mention are really private to the object instance, so ID does not necessarily have to be a public property.

Upvotes: 2

AndrewS
AndrewS

Reputation: 3500

I include the ID as a property. Having a simple unique identifier for an object is often very handy regardless of whether the object is persisted in a database or not. It also makes your database queries much more simple.

I would say that the table is just a means to persist an object, but that doesn't mean the object can't have an ID.

Upvotes: 1

balpha
balpha

Reputation: 50918

If you ever make changes to the existing data (instead of exclusively adding new data), you need the PK. Otherwise you don't know which record to change in the DB.

Upvotes: 5

gub
gub

Reputation: 5229

Basically: yes. All the persistence frameworks ive used (including Hibernate, Ibatis) do require the ID to be on the Object.

I understand your point about metadata, but an Object from a database should really derive its identity in the same way the database does - usually an int primary key. Then Object-level equality should be derived from that.

Sometimes you have primary keys that are composite, e.g first name and last name (don't ever do this!), in which cases the primary key doesn't become 'metadata' because it is part of the Object's identity.

I generally reserve the ID column of an object for the database. My opinion is that to use it for any 'customer-facing' purpose, (for example, use the primary key ID as a customer number) you will always shoot yourself in the foot later.

Upvotes: 8

Related Questions