Our system manages N data dases which all of them share the same tables (standard tables), but in addition each data base has its own specific tables too.
The modules which access the standard tables are programmed in the core. To access specefic tables we load assemblies by reflection in which there are a specific assembly for every data base.
How can we solve an operation which works with standard tables (core programming) and specific ones (due to reflection) in which the whole operation is in a transaction?.
We can not use 2 EF context, due to we are not able to use distributed transaction
Thank you in advance
If you use the same connection string for both DbContexts, you do not need a distributed transaction with EF6, as you can pass a SqlTransaction that you own to each DbContext - see https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn456843(v=vs.113).aspx under the "Passing an existing transaction to the context" heading
Related
I want to log exceptions to my database to ensure failures are recorded. I am using entity framework.
Should I setup an encapsulated logging service that records to a table which is not managed by entity framework or should I just make an ef class called Log?
Im thinking that a log is not really an entity that represents my application parts, but represents meta data which is why I ask.
Consider a separate (bounded) context for your general logging. If logs happen to reference top-level entities you can define minimal entity definitions for these as well. Logging operations are heavy-write, so by keeping a separate DbContext you minimize the spin-up time.
When it comes to auditing (I.e. persisting change tracking) then I commonly use a pattern that hooks directly into the DbContext events and records information based on when entities are updated, inserted, or deleted.
How to create View (SQL) from Entity Framework in ABP Framework
Not allowed to post comments because of reputation. Just trying to get more information on connecting a database to an Entity Framework, without having to switch to a code-first development style. View selected answer's response (he told the OP to basically do the same thing he was going to do in the DB but with EF, and then added an extra step where EF "...ignores..." the previous instructions...
I want to create tables and design database directly in SQL, and have the csharp library just read/write the table values (kind of like how dapper function where it isnt replacing your database, just working along side of it).
The tutorials don't talk about how to integrate your databases with your project. It either brushes over the subject, ignores it completely, or discusses how to replace it.
I don't want to do any EF migrations (i dont want/need to destroy/create database everytime i decide to run, duplicate, or transfer project). Any and all database back-track (back-up/restore) should be done with and thru SQL (within my work environment).
Just to be clear on exactly what i'm trying to learn:
How does somebody who specializes in database administration (building database schema, managing and monitoring data, and has existing database with data established) connect to project to fetch data (again, specifically referencing Dapper's Query functionality).
I want to integrate and design micro-services, some may share the same database connection or rely on another. But i just simply want to read data in a clean strongly-typed class entity, and maybe deal with insert/update somewhere else if i have to.
I would prefer to use Dapper instead of EF, but ABP is so heavily integrated with EF's design, it's more of a headache to avoid it, than it is to just go along with.
You should be able to map EF under ABP the same way as any other project using DB-first configuration.
The consistent approach I use for EF: (DB-First)
Define entities to match the table/view structure.
Define configuration classes extending EntityTypeConfiguration<TEntity> with the associated ToTable(), HasKey(), and any HasMany/HasRequired/HasOptional for relationships as needed.
In DbContext.OnModelCreating: modelBuilder.Configurations.AddFromAssembly(GetType().Assembly); to load all entity configurations. (assuming DbContext is in the same assembly as the models/configurations Substitute GetType().Assembly to point at the entity assembly.
Turn off Migrations. In DbContext constructor: Database.SetInitializer<MyDbContext>(null);
EF offers a lot more than simply mapping tables to classes. By mapping relationships between entities, EF can help generate optimized queries for retrieving data across those related entities. This can allow you to flatten data structures without returning unnecessary data, replace the need for views, and generally reduce the amount of data coming across the wire from the database to the application server.
I am working on a very large application with over 100 modules, and almost 500 tables in the database. We are converting this application to WPF/WCF using Entity Framework 4.2 Code First. Our database is SQL Anywhere 11. Because of the size of the database, we are using an approach similar to Bounded DbContexts, as described here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj883952.aspx by Julie Lerman.
Each of our modules creates its own DbContext, modeling only the subset of the database that it needs.
However, we have run into a serious problem with the way DbContexts are created. Our modules are not neatly self-contained, nor can they be. Some contain operations that are called from several other modules. And when they are, they need to participate in transactions started by the calling modules. (And for architectural reasons, DTC is not an option for us.) In our old ADO architecture, there was no problem passing an open connection from module to module in order to support transactions.
I've looked at various DbContext constructor overloads, and tried managing the transaction from EntityConnection vs. the StoreConnection, and as far as I can tell, there is no combination that allows ModuleA to begin a transaction, call a function in ModuleB, and have ModuleB's DbContext participate in the transaction.
It comes down to two simple things:
Case 1. If I construct DbContextB with DbContextA's EntityConnection, DbContextB is not built with its own model metadata; it reuses DbContextA's metadata. Since the Contexts have different collections of DbSets, all ModuleB's queries fail. (The entity type is not a part of the current context.)
Case 2. If I construct DbContextB with ModuleA's StoreConnection, DbContextB does not recognize the StoreConnection's open transaction at the EntityConnection level, so EF tries to start a new transaction when ModuleB calls SaveChanges(). Since the database connection in fact has an open transaction, this generates a database exception. (Connection does not support parallel transactions.)
Is there any way to 1) force DbContextB to build its own model in Case 1, or 2) get DbContextB's ObjectContext to respect its StoreConnection's transaction state in Case 2?
(By the way, I saw some encouraging things in the EF6 alpha, but after testing it out, found the only difference was that I could create DbContextB on an open connection. But even then, the above 2 problems still exist.)
I suggest you try use the TransactionScope object to manage this task for you. As long as all of your DbContexts use the same connection string (not connection object) the transaction should not try to enlist MS-DTC.
I'm developing a data access layer for a database with over 700 tables. I created the model including all the tables, which generated a huge model. I then changed the model to use DBContext from 4.1 which seemed to improve how it compiled and worked. The designer didnt seem to work at all.
I then created a test app which just added two records to the table, but the processor went 100% in the db.SaveChanges method. Being a black box it was difficult to accertain what went wrong.
So my questions are
Is the entity framework the best approach to a large database
If so, should the model be broken down into logical areas. I did note that you cant have the same sql table in multiple models
I have read that the code only approach is best in these large cases. What is that.
Any guidance would be truly appreciated
Thanks
Large database is always something special. Any technology has some pros and cons when working with a large database.
The problem you have encountered is the most probably related to building the model. When you start the application and use EF related stuff for the first time EF must build the model description and compile it - this is the most time consuming operation you can find in EF. Complexity of this operation grows with number of entities in the model. Once the model is compiled it is reused for the whole lifetime of the application (if you restart the application or unload application domain the model must be compiled again). You can avoid this by precompiling the model. It is done at design time where you use some tool to generate code from the model and you include that code into your project (it must be done again after each change in the model). For EDMX based models you can use EdmGen.exe to generate views and for code first based models you can use EF Power Tools CTP1.
EDMX (the designer) was improved in VS 2010 SP1 to be able to work with large models but I still think the large in this case is around 100 entities / tables. In the same time you rarely need 715 tables in the same model. I believe that these 715 tables indeed model several domains so you can divide them into multiple models.
The same is true when you are using DbContext and code first. If you model a class do you think that it is correct design when the class exposes 715 properties? I don't think so but that is exactly what your derived DbContext looks like - it has a public property for each exposed entity set (in the simplest mapping it means one property per table).
Same entity can be used in multiple models but you should try to avoid it as much as possible because it can introduce some complexities when loading entity in one context type and using it in other context type.
Code only = code first = Entity framework when you define mapping in the code without using EDMX.
take a look this post.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2008/11/24/working-with-large-models-in-entity-framework-part-1.aspx
I am writing an application that will move data from one database to another Using JPA EntityManager API. My questions are : 1. Can i use multiple entity managers in a single transaction? 2. Can i read an entity from one database and persist it in the other? what are the issues that am likely to encounter?
Can I use multiple entity managers in a single transaction?
Yes, using JTA. I'm not sure you need a global transaction in your case though. Are you really moving or copying entities from one DB to the other? In the later case, you could use two transactions sequentially.
Can I read an entity from one database and persist it in the other?
Assuming they have the same structure and you don't have any conflicting PK, it should be possible to read an entity using a first entity manager, detach it and then merge it using another entity manager. If you have possible PK conflicts, you'll have to use a DIY approach (vs a simple merge).