Can we create entities classes from Database views using JPA Tools the way we do for database tables?
Manuj
You use the same syntax as you would for creating entity classes for a table. The only differences are: 1) typically views are read only, thus your entity will likely only be used as read only, and 2) Like all entities you need to have a primary key, thus your view will need to either have one column that has unique identity values, or a combination of columns that can be used as a unique identity.
The views are also available in the list of tables when you specify the connection and the schema.
Related
So I'm creating a database model using Entity Framework's Code First paradigm and I'm trying to create two tables (Players and Teams) that must share a uniqueness constraint regarding their primary key.
For example, I have 3 Players with Ids "1", "2" and "3" and when I try to create a Team with Id "2", the system should validate uniqueness and fail because there already exists a Player with Id "2".
Is this possible with data annotations? Both these entities share a common Interface called IParticipant if that helps!
Txs in advance lads!
The scenario you are describing here isn't really ideal. This isn't really a restriction on Entity Framework; it's more a restriction on the database stack. By default, the Id primary key is an Identity column, and SQL itself isn't really supportive of the idea of "shared" Identity columns. You can disable Identity and manage the Id properties yourself, but then Entity Framework cannot automatically build navigation properties for your entities.
The best option here is to use one single participant table, in a technique called "Table Per Hierarchy", or TPH. Entity Framework can manage the single table using an internal discriminator column. Shared properties can be put into the base class, and non-shared properties can be put on the individual classes, which Entity Framework will composite into a single large table in the DB. The main drawback to this strategy is that columns for non-shared properties will automatically be nullable in the database. This article describes this scenario very well.
The more I try to come up with a solution, I realize that this is an example of the XY Problem. There is not really a good solution to this question, because this question is already a proposed solution. There is a problem here that has led you to create an Interface which you suggest requires the entities which are using the interface to have a unique Id. This really sounds like an issue with the design of the Interface itself, as Interfaces should be agnostic to the entity they are applied to. Perhaps providing some code and showing what your problem actually is would be helpful, since the proposed solution you are asking how to implement here isn't really practical.
I did work on ADO.NET Entity Framework v2 about two years ago. I have faint memories.
Incidentally, I happen to be working in a very secured (for want of a euphemism) environment where a lot of links are blocked and there's not much one can do. It does get in the way of studying and working, more than a bit.
Therefore, I have to rely on this forum for a few basic questions I have to get started again. This time, I am working on Entity Framework 4. Here are my questions.
All these questions relate to the EDM generated entities, i.e. not the Code First model.
1) Is my understanding correct? I can rename any column name in the EDM designer generated model and nothing breaks.
2) Foreign keys are expressed as navigational properties in the generated entity classes. No special consideration is required to maintain foreign key relationships. I recall in version 1 of EF, you had just ID properties and the navigational IQueryable/IEnumerable/EntityCollection/RelatedEnd properties were introduced in version 2. I just need to know if I need to do anything to retain/maintain foreign key relationships and referential data integrity. I assume I don't need to. A confirmation would be nice.
3) What are all the possible ways to execute a stored procedure? I recall -- one way to use ExecuteSQL or something on the Context.Database object, another to use EntityClient API and the third was to specify stored procedure names in the InsertCommand, SelectCommand, etc. thingies in the mapping window of the EDM designer. Is this correct?
4) How do you use those SelectCommand thingies in the mapping window on an entity? Do you just supply the names of the stored procedures or user defined SQL functions?
5) How do I create an entity out of a subset of a table? Do I just create an entity from the table and then delete the columns I don't need from the designer? What happens if there are required (NOT NULL in SQL) values that are not in the subset I choose?
6) How do I create a table out of a query or join of two or more tables.
1) You can rename columns in the designer and nothing should break (if the name is valid)
2) Navigation properties point to related entities. In EF4 foreign keys were added. Foreign key properties basically expose the database way of handling relations. However, they are helpful since you don't have to load related entities just to change relationship - you can just change the key value to the id of the other entity and save your changes
3) Yes. You can either execute the procedure directly - this is for stored procedures that are not related to CUD (Create/Update/Delete) operations. You can map CUD operations to stored procedure as opposed to having EF execute SQL statements it came up with for your CUD operations.
4) I think this is a bit out of scope - you probably can find a lot of blogs with images how to do it. Any decent book on EF should also have a chapter (or two) on this. Post a question to stackoverflow if you hit a specific problem.
5) Remove properties in the designer and then supply default value to the S-Space definition. I believe you cannot do this with the designer. You need to rightclick on the edmx file and open it with the Xml editor and manually edit it. Also see this: Issue in EF, mapping fragment,no default value and is not nullable
6) You can either create a view in the database or you can create entity set using E-SQL in your edmx file (I think this will be read only though) or you may be able to use Entity Splitting. Each of these is probably a big topic itself so I think you should find more about these and come back if you have more specific questions / problems
I want to create an entity in EF without a public key. The backing table has got a non-unique clustered key, but the data in the table conceptually doesn't have a unique primary key it can use.
It looks like EF really doesn't like this. Is there any way of getting EF to accept that the table has no primary key and make it work with it anyway, with no performance hit? I don't care if the result is read-only.
As I understand it, as the Entity Framework is based on the Domain Driven Design concept of Entities, each Entity by definition must have a unique identifier. If the concept which the data in your table represents does not conceptually have a unique identifier then it is not an Entity, in the sense intended by the framework.
With this in mind I'd define a Stored Procedure, make it available through my object context, then make the objects encapsulating this data available via a class which lazy-loads the data, manually maps it into the objects you're using and presents it in a read-only manner.
You may also be able to accomplish this by exposing a view and then mapping your entity to the view.
have two tables in database.
They have completely the same columns, only the difference between them - they have different names.
Lets say i have TableSea with column s Id and Name and TableOcean with the same columns Id and Name.
I want to use EF 4 to be able CRUD operations, i am also want to use stored procs mapping for insert update and delete operations.
I am already created POCO entity for first table and i did create stored procedures and map them to entity model. All working well.
How make it work with two tables without create a new entity for second table?
AFAIK, you can't, and you definitely shouldn't!
If you have two identical database tables, then this means one of the following:
The two tables mirror closely
related concepts (like Sea and Ocean
in your example).
The two tables
mirror different concepts which only
accidentally have the same
properties.
Depending on which scenario is closer to reality, you have these two design options:
Merge the two tables and add a
Type property (column), then map
it to one entity type. You might
have different subclasses to
differentiate between types, or you
may go with an additional Type
property - whichever fits better for
you.
Have two tables. Which means: there are two different concepts. Consequently, this has to be mirrored by two different entities in the business model.
In any case, having an entity table in the database means having an entity class in the business model. If there's no such 1:1 - mapping, then clearly something is wrong with the design!
Thomas
I have 2 databases (sql server 2005) in my system, one for configuration data and the other one for Application Data, but there are some tables that are needed in both databases. We've solved that using Synonyms but the problem is when we map the tables in Entity Framework.
We have a Language table in the config database, used for localization purposes. But in the application we have a table called "Countries", and it has a child table to contain the country's fields translated.
My Entity Framework Context maps tables in the Application database and the only way to map the Languages table from the other database is including a View created in the Application Database. Everything works fine, but when I try to make an Association between the CountryTranslation entity and the Language entity I get this exception:
Problem in Mapping Fragments starting at lines 733, 855: Non-Primary-Key column(s) [pai_codlan] are being mapped in both fragments to different conceptual side properties - data inconsistency is possible because the corresponding conceptual side properties can be independently modified.
Do you know if this is a possible scenario? How do I resolve this?
Thx!
Solved!
All I had to do was delete the column that was mapped as a Entity Property and just keep the Navigational Property..