The design of EF forces developers to inherit the DbContext class. Some reusable libraries (such as ASP.NET Identity) typically provides its functionality using the same inheritance route, i.e. by providing the IdentityDbContext base-class.
But obviously this won't work if you have 2 such libraries, e.g. requiring you to inherit from IdentityDbContext and CmsDbContext at the same time, which is obviously impossible to do on .NET. The result that I want is to have an application-dbcontext that contains both the models from my identity module and my cms module (I won't be able to separate this to 2 dbcontexts since that would mean I will end up with multiple connections and transactions, and that my models can only reference to either identity or cms entities, but not both).
It's hard to believe that this question hasn't seemed to be asked around EF community, but this seems like a horrendously bad ORM design. Inheritance only lets you to have strictly linear modularisation. (As a comparison, in NHibernate, ISession and your Configuration are 2 separate things, therefore you can use discovery process to build up your mapping-configuration from different unrelated modules, without messing with my ISession and thus my db-connection/transactions).
So the question is, let's say you're a developer of a module that would like to register models into entity-framework (similar to ASP.NET identity module), you won't want to have a base DbContext that the consuming application must inherit, because it would prevent them from consuming other modules (e.g. ASP.NET identity's IdentityDbContext). So what are my options?
Is there any way to register models into a DbContext class without requiring to inherit from a DbContext? Is overriding OnModelCreating the only way to get access to a ModelBuilder?
I don't think your comparison is entirely fair. (Although I'm the first to admit that NHibernate beats EF in many areas).
With NHibernate, usually you load objects by some generic method in which you supply the type you want to load. You could create ISession implementations with hard-coded Query<T> (or QueryOver<T>) properties, like...
public Query<MyUser> Users { get; set; }
...and you'd have the same "problem" that you can't merge, or inherit from, two different implementations.
Likewise, you could work with EF by loading objects by using context.Set<T> only. You could even inject the configuration (sort of) by supplying EntityTypeConfiguration classes (as a list) in the context's constructor, storing them in a member variable and adding them to the model builder in the OnModelCreating override.
These specialized context classes, like IdentityDbContext, are offered to make life easier if they suit you. They have hard-coded DbSet properties (among others). The fact that you can't multiple inherit them is not a design flaw. It's just a (non-negotiable) language specification.
Choose the one that most closely serves your needs (propably CmsDbContext) and add other class mappings yourself.
Related
I recently, out of ignorance and lack of time, merged the domain models (POCO entity classes) from several projects into one 'DataModel' project, because I didn't want to duplicate dedicated DbContexts over all the projects. It struck me as ideal that something generic might be done, like a DbContext extension, to which one can add DbSet instances from various client projects.
I have read mention of such things, normally in the same circles as authors that contend - and I agree wholeheartedly - that the repository functionality is fulfilled completey by the DbSet class.
Can anyone offer any advice for building a generic DbContext which can exist in one project, where other projects can all have their domain models (sets of domain entities) registered with the shared DbContext, where they are all allocated they own DbSet to act as their repository?
building a generic DbContext which can exist in one project, where other projects can all have their domain models (sets of domain entities) registered
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure what you would gain by that.
For one, you'd never be able to simply type db.Customer (or similar). It should always be genericdb.Set<Customer>(), not knowing whether genericdb knows about Customer at all. (It may not have been registered).
Then, how should this registering take place? There are two ways to let a context map a class to a database model:
Creating a DbSet property in a DbContext-derived class and rely on code-first default conventions concerning table and column names, pluralization, etc.
Providing mapping configuration.
The first option defeats the purpose of a generic context class, so you'd have to register the domain classes by supplying EntityTypeConfiguration<T>s for each class in the domain, also for classes that normally could do without. (This should be done in the context's constructor, by the way.)
A further implication would be that somewhere you'd need a component/service that knows which groups of classes belong together and is able to deliver a coherent list of configurations. So, in stead of having dedicated contexts as an organizing principle out of the box you'd have to create your own organizer.
But back to the start. Couldn't you create a DAL that contains a DbContext factory that supplies the contexts as they previously existed for your projects? You don't have to duplicate dedicated DbContext classes this way.
We are in a process of designing an application with approx 100 tables and complicated business logic. Windows Forms will be used on the client side and WCF services with MSSQL on the server.
Custom DTOs are used for client-server communication, business entities are not distributed.
Which variant of Entity Framework to use (and why):
EF 4.0 EntityObjects
EF 4.0 POCO
EF 4.1 DbContext
Something else
Database-first approach is a requirement.
Also, is it worth implementing a Repository pattern? It seems a bit redundant, as there is one level of abstraction in the mapping itself and another one in the use of DTOs. I'm currently leaned towards using auto-generated extendable repositories for each entity returning IQueryable, just to have a place to put common queries, but still allowing querying entity model directly from the Service Layer.
Which variant to use? Basically once you have custom DTO the only question is do you want to have control over entities code (their base class) and make them independent on EF? Do you want to use code first? If the answers to all questions are no then you can use EntityObjects. If you want to have entities persistence ignorant or use custom base class you should go to POCO. If you want to use code first or new DbContext API you will need EF 4.1. Some related topics:
EF 4.1 Code-first vs Model/Database-first
EF POCO code only VS EF POCO with Entity Data Model (this was related to CTP)
ADO.NET DbContext Generator vs. ADO.NET POCO Entity Generator
EF Model First or Code First Approach?
There are more things to consider when designing service layer. You should be aware of complications you will have to deal with when using EF in WCF. Your service will provide data to WinForms application and it will work with them in "detached mode". Once user will do all changes he wants to do he will post data back to the service. But here comes the problem - you must tell EF what has changed. If you for example allow user to change order with all its order items (change quantity in items, add new items, delete some items) you must say EF exactly what has changed, what was added and what was deleted. That is easy when you work with single entity but once you allow user to change object graph (especially many-to-many relations) then it is quite tough. The most common solution is loading the whole graph and merge the state from incoming DTOs to loaded and attached graph. Other solution is using Self tracking entities instead of EntityObjects/POCOs + DTOs.
When discussing repositories I would refer you to this answer which refers many other answers discussing repositories, their possible redundancy and possible mistakes when using them just to make your code testable. Generally each layer should be added only if there is real need for the layer - due to better separation of concerns.
The main advantage of POCOs is that those classes can be your DTOs, so if you've already got custom DTOs that you're using, POCO seems a bit redundant. However, there are some other advantages which may or may not have value to you, since you didn't mention unit testing as a requirement. If you plan to write unit tests, then POCO is still the way to go. You probably won't notice much difference between 4.0 POCO and 4.1 since you won't be using the code-first feature (disclaimer: I've only used 4.0 POCO, so I'm not intimately familiar with any minor differences between the two, but they seem to be more or less the same--basically I was already using POCO in 4.0 and haven't seen anything that's made me want to update everything to use 4.1).
Also, depending on whether you plan to unit-test this layer, there's still value in implementing the repository/unit of work patterns when using Entity Framework. It serves to abstract away the data access logic (the context), not the entities themselves, and allows you to do things like mocking your context in unit tests. What I do is copy the T4 template for my context and use it to create the interface, then edit the T4 template for the context and have it implement that interface and use IObjectSet<T> instead of ObjectSet<T>. So instead of:
public class MyEntitiesContext
{
public ObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities
...
}
I end up with:
public interface IMyEntitiesContext
{
public IObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities;
}
and
public class MyEntitiesContext : IMyEntitiesContext
{
public IObjectSet<MyClass> MyEntities
...
}
So I guess it really comes down to whether or not you plan to write unit tests for this layer. If you won't be doing anything that would require mocking out your context for testing, then the easiest thing to use would probably be 4.0 EntityObjects, since you aren't planning to pass your entities between layers and it would require the least effort to implement. If you plan to use mocking, then you'll probably want to use POCO and implement repository/unit of work.
I use standard ObjectContext and EntityObjects in my application. Let's say two of my tables are Projects & Services. Projects have Subproject (from Projects table with ParentID == ProjectID) and also Services. So I would have a hierarchy like Projects->Subprojects->Services. But I need to inherit Projects and Services from an abstract base class so I can use any of these entities as a new Task/Job entity in my application. Then, for example I can create a TreeList listing all Tasks (either a Project or Service). Is there anyway in EDMX designer I can create a new type (entity) which is the base calss for two or more concrete types?
It is possible with TPC inheritance but it will include a lot of complication to your design. For example:
you will have to move shared properties to the base class
you will probably have to maintain some mappings manually in EDMX (at least I had when I did the sample on screenshot)
you will have only single ObjectSet<Tasks> and you will have to use OfType to query only Projects or Services
you will have to use unique Id per Task = across both Project and Service tables (can be achieved by correctly configured identities in database)
It will look like:
Another option is using interface on your entity objects instead of parent class. You can define interface in your partial part of entity object and handle retrieving both Projects and Services by yourselves where your UI will expect only list of types implementing your interface.
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/gilf/archive/2010/01/25/table-per-concrete-type-inheritance-in-entity-framework.aspx
Since it sounds like your data is coming from 2 separate tables, Projects and Services, no, I don't think you can achieve this in the designer (at least, not without hand-editing the generated edmx). If there were a common table to represent the base class, that could be done in the designer, but that doesn't sound like it fits your situation.
What you may be able to do is use an interface instead of an abstract base class, and use partial classes in your entity model to implement the interface for each of your entities. You can't directly inherit from your abstract base class in your entity model, because all of your entities already derive from EntityObject. If you have a lot of shared implementation that resides in your base class, it might be worthwhile to switch to POCO, where you can define your own inheritance hierarchy.
According to Initial POCO Design 1-Pager
Persistence Ignorance refers to being
able to allow the developer to write
and test domain objects in a way that
is entirely independent of fundamental
requirements and assumptions that may
be made by the infrastructure service
(in this case, the Entity Framework).
Such requirements / assumptions may
often include:
The need to implement a specific interface (for e.g., IPOCO)
Inheritance from a base class
Providing specific constructors
Object Instantiation/Construction requirements – use a specific factory
for instance**
The need for metadata or mapping class or property Attributes
The need to use specific relationship mechanisms
This amounts to being able to use
Plain Old CLR Objects (POCO) so that a
developer can author their domain
objects free of all assumptions and
requirements imposed by the framework.
Using this approach, once the domain
objects are ready to their
satisfaction, the developer can use
these classes with the Entity
Framework in order for relational
database access and persistence.
As of right now (CTP5), is there any way at all to reconstitute a poco using a parametrized constructor? If not, it's hard to see how the Entity Framework can be said to offer persistence ignorance.
You can have as many parameterized constructors as you want, so long as the framework has access to a parameter-less one, which is available by default if you you have no constructors, or if you provide one in addition to the parameterized ones you create.
I'm using DataAnnotations for validation of a custom class (LINQ to SQL auto generated) using the MetadataType tag on top of the class. I'm loving DataAnnotations and it works well in simple, common scenarios. E.g.
[MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))]
public class Person
But what if you need to have two different sets of validation rules applied to the class in different scenarios???
My situation: Some fields are mandatory on the www public-facing site, but not mandatory on the internal admin site. But both sites have a View which "Creates New" of the same object/class.
This is where it becomes DataAnnotations HELL surfaces..
I've tried using two different ViewModels with different validation applied to each of them, two classes that inherit from Person with different validation applied to each of them. But all roads seem to conflict with DRY principals and you end up somewhere along the line having the totally respecify all properties for the underlying class structure. You don't have to do this when you just have one validation rule set. So it very quickly becomes hell and not practical for complex objects.
Is this possible using DataAnnotations and what is the best DRY architecture?
Not sure what you mean by 'virtually duplicate and manually set each and every property manually in the original underlying class'. I've never liked the idea of buddy classes, and would personally recommend different view models for Admin and Public site (with appropriate validation set on each), and then mapping between the models using AutoMapper.
UPDATE:
Regading Automapper, the basic usage is something like this:
First you have to define your mappings. This lets automapper figure out in advance how to map objects. You only need to do this once in the application, so a good place to do this in an ASP.NET app is in Application_Start() in Global.asax. For each pair of classes you want to map between, call: Mapper.CreateMap<SourceType, DestinationType>();
Then, in your application code to do the map you just use:
var destinationObject = Mapper.Map<SourceType, DestinationType>(sourceOjbect);