Linked Server and Synonym

Last Friday, I needed to compare the content of both the DEV and QA databases as a preparation for a QA deployment. My machine just got a fresh image so I didn’t have the database tools that could have made the task a breeze. I had to finish ahead of the deployment so instead of rummaging for the installer of the tools, I decided to improvise. Good thing, they were just few reference tables which usually have few columns.

In order to accomplish my task, I should be able to connect to the QA database in a remote machine and query the equivalent tables together local ones in a single query. But SQL Server has no innate ability to query database from other machine. You connect to that machine using the feature called Linked Server. It’s not going to be a smooth procedure though per my experience but the solution is not too complex to stymie anyone. Once connected, you can query the pertinent tables and here, another feature called Synonym, first introduced in SQL Server 2005, can offer a little convenience.

So the first step is to create a linked server. One way to accomplish this is by right clicking the Linked Servers under the Server Objects node and selecting “Add New Linked Server…”. In my case, I was connecting only to a SQL Server instance so in the General Page all I needed to specify was the name of the instance. Be aware that this is not an arbitrary value when connecting to a SQL Server instance. It has to be the name of the instance.

Next is to configure the security aspect. The objective here is to specify a local login which will be mapped to another login in the remote server so that whenever you use the linked server, you actually use a proxy login in the remote server with the correct privileges. If both servers are located in the same machine, you can simply add any login with correct privileges and check “Impersonate” as shown below. This is a good practice since you’re controlling who gets access to the remote server.

Applying the setting above in a remote server in an Active Directory however, produces this vague error message:

I have no idea where the heck this “NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS” account comes from so I googled the last sentence which, as you can see, is pretty much generic. Not surprisingly, the result was a myriad of situations on almost anything that involves NT authentication. Among them, this one, in my opinion gives the closest semblance to my predicament. Although the KB is applicable only to SQL Server 7.0, I still tried the solution. Mapping the local login didn’t work either so I ultimately settled for SQL Server-authenticated account to establish the security context. I skip the mapping list altogether so the configuration dialog should then contain only values similar to the ones below:

After establishing the linked server, one can proceed to cross database query like this:

If you perform considerable number of queries on the remote server, you can leverage on Synonym which can spare you some keystrokes and make the queries a tad shorter. This is because with Synonym, you can create alias on certain objects of the remote database. You create a synonym in the “Synonym” node of your database. With my linked server, a synonym configuration would look like this:

The only arbitrary field is the name. Everything depends on the properties of the local and remote database. You can also create synonyms for other objects like function, stored procedures and view. Note that the account used by the linked server should have the needed privileges to the concerned object in order to succeed with the creation. With that taken cared of, the previous query then becomes:

Like any other database objects, Synonym is “securable” meaning you can control who gets to do what on it. This can be done in the Permission page of the Create Synonym dialog as shown below. First I thought this can be used to grant access for logins other than the one used in the linked server but based on my investigation, it looks like it’s dependent on the linked server logins. This means you cannot grant access on a synonym to a login unless it is also capable of connecting to the linked server. For safety reasons, I would have loved it if I could let a developer access a synonym but not the linked server.

Obviously this not the most efficient way of comparing data between two identical databases but sometimes when you do things manually, you would be compelled to explore some hidden features in a technology. Who knows, those features might come handy for tasks where tools for achieving them are not there yet.

My First Battle

A few months back, I got a notice from Yahoo! that it’s was about to pull the plug on Briefcase, its free online storage service and that I needed to transfer all the files. There, I found a zip file of the very first industrial-strength project I developed almost 9 years ago together with some friends. When I got a copy of Visual Studio 6 from a friend, I decided to look into the codes again and what I discovered are traces of struggle, perseverance, and naiveness that shaped the coder that I am today. Every project is a battle. This is the first one and I had only the slightest idea of what I got myself into.

The project is a VB6 client-server application for an apparel company. It was used to compute wage for factory workers based on the work items (known as job) they’ve done for the week. It was originally a college project but the primary stakeholders, realizing the huge return of investment from automated process, tasked them to continue working on it for a price. Well, we didn’t really know the price at that point but the idea of making money out of the craft you’re trying to learn from school was just too enticing. I joined the team when it was realized that MS Access was no longer up to the job. In my case, my enthusiasm was further bolstered by the fact that I was still beginning to learn SQL Server.

The project became an eye-opener to the real nature of the craft I chose. I didn’t graduate with a computer degree but I decided to pursue programming thru self-thought because it’s the only way I can satisfy the “control freak” in me. I thought it would be fun, after all it’s about doing what you really love, right? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It turned out to be a nightmare; capable of turning anyone into a zombie due to several sleepless nights and skipped meals. The same is the nature of software development as I experience nowadays but the big differences is that we were still naive then. We lacked the experience and knowledge about good software development practices. Exacerbating the situation were the comparatively primitive technologies we’re using which always compelled us to make compromises in order to achieve the best solutions. This post, and the ones hereafter, will explore the mistakes I made and how they influenced the subsequent projects I had. I will also discuss the by which they should be implemented using the most current technologies.

The Model and the Names

Virtually every business application deals with data so it just makes perfect sense if I start with the data model. I can say that I designed about 90% of the data model. Another member took care of the remaining 10% for an auxiliary applications which he solely developed. The first thing you would probably notice is the application of Hungarian Notation and underscores. I learned this style and the naming convention, which you will see momentarily, from the book I was reading at that time. As a beginner, you tend to be dogmatic and don’t even dare to ponder if what you’re imitating is actually right. I later found out that this style is not just hard to read but totally unnecessary.

There were more tables than what were actually needed. This is because I maintained history on some data which I thought would be valuable for auditing and report generation. This is actually a big mistake. Queries involving temporal data are not straightforward because you’re always dealing with composite unique keys involving dates. Besides, the stakeholder did not ask for it - I just assumed it. The adjustments we made just to cater for temporal data, significantly delayed the delivery of the project. I was guilty of that.

“As a beginner, you tend to be dogmatic and don’t even dare to ponder if what you’re imitating is actually right.”

The model included extraneous tables.

I did not use the IDE to create my database objects. Instead, I painstakingly wrote the script for the entire database! For a beginner, it’s a great way to learning SQL but it’s a bad practice simply because it takes so much time. Companies don’t hire you because you can write an entire script of a database. They hire those who can achieve things within the shortest period of time so that means being adept with tools.

Sample script for a table, complete with constraints.

“The adjustments we made just to cater for temporal data, significantly delayed the delivery of the project. I was guilty of that.”

Later in the development, I’ve had enough of Hungarian Notation and this couldn’t be more evident than the contact number column. From a book I referenced, contact numbers were stored as integer and I just blindly followed that. But having it so requires parsing and formatting in the UI. Worse, changing its data type also means making sure the procedure or views that used it were modified because the column name has changed. Coupling is the biggest headache from Hungarian Notation especially that time when there was still no refactoring tools. Another lesson I learned from this is that a column, even though they can be stored as numbers, should never be numeric unless it's being used in some kind of computation.

 

Some columns did not use Hungarian Notation anymore

What’s next

this point, it’s should be clear that I just scratched the surface of one laborious undertaking. In the next installment of this series, I’ll discuss the complexities involved in dealing with time-aware data.

Spring Season

Codes can be downloaded here

Yesterday, I got the chance to tinker with another wiring framework, the grand daddy of them all – Spring.NET - which is actually the first wiring framework I came to know about. This is already my third post with regard to wiring framework so you can expect some references to the castle and unity posts along the way. Like the last two, I’d like to share the opinions from the point of view of someone who just wants a quick wiring solution.

First, you need to download the framework here. Spring is an application framework encompassing other concerns which include but not limited to data access, logging, and testing. The documentation is pretty impressive, complete with samples. It even explains the concepts that drives the creation of framework. Best of all, it has a PDF format which I prefer because of the bookmark feature.

Since we only want wiring framework, the Spring.Core dll would suffice. This is located in the <spring framework installation folder>\bin\net\2.0\release. Make a reference to it together with the abstraction and the concrete assemblies.

Like any other frameworks that utilize the .NET configuration feature, Spring requires configuration entries. This part is well documented so nube shouldn’t have any problem. As you can see in the illustration below, Spring uses the term “context” for what we usually refer as “container” This may be because the context object has more functions other than resolving objects but I haven’t explored this yet. Among the 3, I find Spring entries to be the most verbose. First, you need a separate handler for the object (type in Unity, component in Castle). Then, the context should have a reference to the section which contains the objects it can resolve. In Unity, the objects are simply nested within the container and Castle is similar but doesn’t give you the option to specify which container the objects belong. One thing I like though is the absence of the interface declaration in the objects. In the declaration for the object “searcher” we don’t have to specify ISearcher.  Doing so would have been redundant since you will specify it in the codes anywise.

Nothing new with the code part. You instantiate the context, which in our case is the default. The resolution however, could have benefitted from generics. Among the 3 framework, this is the only one that uses casting.

Voila!

I’m sure there are still so many features in Spring that need to be explored. One feature which piques my curiosity is its tight integration with NHibernate. For the time being, I think I should be good with Castle.