We are using Entity Framework 4 with the POCO Entity Generator. Until now we've just had one .edmx file but we're running into performance problems due to the current size of it (well over 100 entities).
I understand we should be looking to break this into a series of .edmx files which is fine with one exception. We would want to somehow share certain entity types across two or more of these contexts. For example a User class is associated with numerous otherwise unrelated entities throughout our model.
So is it possible to have, say, a security model with its own .edmx and namespace for generated POCOs, but use it in another .emdx? If not I'm concerned we'll have multiple classes modelling the same database table which will need to be updated in sync with the database. I'd say that would be unworkable. (We're using database-first).
Obviously if I'm barking up the wrong tree do let me know!
In theory you can have single POCO class used with multiple EDMX mappings because the mapping and class must match only in the name and name/types of properties. In practice this has some limitations. Just few I can think about:
You cannot use automatic code generators with this approach unless you modify generator for every EDMX and make sure that every entity will be generated by just single generator from single EDMX. This directly points to second limitation.
Entity must be exactly same in every EDMX. Including navigation properties. If it is not you will not be able to generate it at all without building your own code generation solution. What is worse if dynamic proxies demand that class with unique name is mapped only once. If you have two or more different mappings for the same class you will not be able to use dynamic proxies (lazy loading, dynamic change tracking) with only single mapping per application run.
Related
When working with EF (v4,5,6) I have always used Database-first (I was mistakenly under the impression this was the only way to generate Entities from existing tables, EDMX, etc). But today I tryed Code-first, and it can also generate the POCOs (in a different way, no EDMX, different connection string, less cr8p lying around, etc..!)
So far, the usage of EF for CRUD appears to be exactly the same, can anyone who has used both please confirm there is nothing different (in usage), or gotchas I should be aware of?
And a supplementary question is, can I generate both in the same project ? (Not that i want to, but existing proj has EDMX within a folder, can I create another folder and generate Code-First Entities (different set of tables only), so i end up with DBContext and DBContext2 ?
Yes, the usage is the same. If you check the generated code you'll see they use the same System.Data.Entity.DbSet properties and they both inherit from the same System.Data.Entity.DbContext class.
Yes, you can generate both in the same project, but does not makes much sense, because you have to maintain both of them if the DB changes.
I have a domain model architecture in which my domain/business objects were created based on the problem domain and independent of any knowledge of the physical data model or persistence structures. So far I'm on track because it's perfectly acceptable and often the case that there is an impedance mismatch between the domain model and the data model. A DBA created the database for getting the data they required, but it does not encapsulate the applications entire domain model or design.
The result - I have my own set of domain model objects. However all of the fields that need to be persisted do exist somewhere or another within my domain model, but not necessarily in the shape that my auto generated .edmx POCO entities have them. So I have all the data, it's just not in the perfect shape exactly like the tables in which auto generated POCO entities are created from.
I have seen a few posts on this topic like converting POCO entity to business entity and Entity Framework 4 with Existing Domain Model that make statements like the following:
"Create the entities in your entity data model with the same names as
your domain classes. The entity properties should also have the same
names and types as in the domain classes"
What!? No way, why should I have to make my domain model be reshaped to POCOs that are modeled exactly after the data model / table structure in the database? For example - in my case of having 5 given properties, 2 might be in class 'A' and 3 in class 'B', whereas a auto generated POCO class has all 5 in its own class 'A'.
This is the entire point, I want separation of my object model and data model but yet still use an ORM like EF 5.0 to map in between them. I do not want to have to create and shape classes and properties named as such in the data model.
Right now my .edmx in EF 5.0 is generating the POCO classes for me, but my question is how to dissolve these and rewire everything to my domain objects that contain all this data but just in a different shape?
By the way any solution proposed using a Code First approach is not an option so please do not offer this. I need some guidance or a tutorial (best) using EF5 (if possible because EF4 examples are always inheriting POCOs from ObjectContext) with wiring up my own business objects to the .edmx.
Any help or guidance is appreciated, thanks!
This sounds like exactly the use case of Entity Framework. I am making a few assumptions here. First that when you make this statement:
"I have a domain model architecture in which my domain/business objects were created based on the problem domain and independent of any knowledge of the physical data model or persistence structures."
That you mean this domain was created in the EF designer? But then you say:
"However all of the fields that need to be persisted do exist somewhere or another within my domain model, but not necessarily in the shape that my auto generated .edmx POCO entities have them."
This sounds to me like my first assumption is incorrect.
Next, you dismiss code first? If your domain model/business objects are code based and you want to persist them to a relational database, that is exactly the use case for code first. You have the code, now you need to create your DbContext and map it to your physical model.
However you dismiss that... so some thoughts:
If you have a domain model of code based business objects and you have an EDMX that is used for other things I think you would want to create a repository layer that uses something like auto mapper or manual projections to query your Entities and return your business objects.
If you have a domain model of code based business objects and you have an EDMX that is not used for other things other than persisting your business objects I would say that you need to express your domain in an EDMX and then map it onto your existing database. This is really the use case for an ORM. Having two domain models and mapping from one model to the other where one model matches your domain and one matches your database is adding an extra un-needed layer of plumbing.
The latter approach above is what is called "Model First" in EF parlance. There are several articles written about it although the bulk of them just generate the db from the model. You would not do that step, rather you would map your entities onto your existing database.
The basic steps for this are to "update from the database" not selecting any of the db objects (or entities would be created). Or, you can take your exiting .edmx in the designer (which is sounds like you have) and modify the entities to match your business domain. Or just delete all the entities in your EDMX model, create your entities as you want them, and then map them all.
Here is a jing I made where I use the EF Designer to bring in the model store (the only way to do this is to allow it to generate entities) and then delete the entities allowing the Store information to stay by clicking NO when it asks if you want to delete the table info.
http://screencast.com/t/8eiPg2kcp
I didn't add the POCO generator to this, but if I did it would generate the Entities in the designer as POCO classes.
The statement quoted above is not suggesting that you rewrite your domain objects to match your pocos, it is suggesting that you update the edmx to match your domain model.
In your example you could create an entity in your edmx that maps all 5 properties from both tables and EF will manage the mapping to and from the single generated Poco onto your tables.
Of course this means that you then have duplicate domain objects and pocos, meaning you would either have to manually convert your domain objects to pocos when interacting with EF,
or you could define your domain data objects as interfaces and provide partial implementations of the pocos that essentially identify each poco as being a concrete implementation of a domain object.
There are probably several other ways to skin this particular cat, but I don't think that you can provide predefined c# objects for use in an edmx.
One approach might be to select into a ViewModel (suited to your particular business logic) and automatically map some data from the context into it like so https://stackoverflow.com/a/8588843/201648. This uses AutoMapper to map entity properties from an EF context into a ViewModel. This won't do everything for you, but it might make life a bit easier. If you're unhappy with the way this occurs automatically, you can configure AutoMapper to do things a bit differently (see Projection) - https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper/wiki/Projection
You might know this already, but its also possible to automatically generate POCOs from your EDMX using t4 - http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/72a60b14-1581-4b9b-89f2-846072eff19d. If you define the templates to generate partial classes, you can then have another partial class with your custom properties for that POCO. That way you can have most properties automatically populated, but have other custom properties which you populate with custom rules from your context/repository. This takes a lot of the monotony out of generating these, and you can then focus on reshaping the data using the above technique.
If you're seriously unhappy with both, you could always map a stored procedure to get the exact field names that you want automatically without needing to stuff around. This will of course affect how you work with the data, but I have done it before for optimisation purposes/where a procedure already existed that did exactly what I wanted. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg699321.aspx
Im currently working in a team that uses EF as the ORM of choice.
We have a common project that contains many EDMX files.
The reason for this is to keep the EDMX files small and manageable while also allowing them to focus on a conceptual set of tables on the database.
Eg
Orders.edmx
Users.edmx
Trades.edmx
These all point to a different set of tables on the same db.
I now need to add the user table to the Trade.edmx file. Since the user table is already in the user.edmx file, this creates the same User type twice under a different namespace which means I would need 2 UserRepository objects.
Common.data.trade.User
Common.data.users.User
Is there a way of avoiding 2 repository objects for the same table?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
If you are using POCO generator you can update template for Trades.edmx to not generate new User class and its context template to use User class from Users namespace. EF matches POCO classes with entities in designer only by the class name (namespace is omitted) so it will work.
The disadvantage is that you have User entity in two mapping files and you must update it in both files or your application throw exception at runtime.
The reason for this problem is your architecture - at the beginning you wanted separated models but know you want to combine entities from different models. Those are contradicting requirements. Either use separated model where Trade knows only userID without any navigation property (like if it is defined in another database) or move all entities to single EDMX to support your new requirements.
I'm new to the MVC way of developing applications and for the most part am enjoying. One thing I'm a bit confused about is the use of the Entity Framework. The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table. A couple of questions:
Why would I define a separate class file for a specific table if EF is building all of the classes that I need in the background?
From some of the validation approaches that I've seen, they want to define validation logic in the class related to a model for a table. If I'm using EF, will I have a .cs file describing the model and a .edmx describing that same table (in addition to its associated tables)?
If yes, how do you connect the .cs file to the .edmx definition so that CRUD flows easily from the EF?
Sorry if these seem like easy questions but I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around these fundamental concepts. Too many examples out there use only a single table where in my business, I NEVER write an application that uses a single table. There are always multiple tables in relation to each other with foreign keys. Thanks for your prompt responses.
For a tutorial that shows the use of partial classes -- in a Web Forms application but for MVC the same technique would be used -- see Adding Metadata to the Data Model in this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/web-forms/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef/the-entity-framework-and-aspnet-getting-started-part-8
From your comment "The EF usually (at least in my experience) defines multiple tables and relationships through the .edmx table." it sounds like you are familiar only with Database First and Model First -- for an introduction to Code First and an explanation of the differences, followed by a series of tutorials with an MVC example using Code First, see this tutorial:
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/creating-an-entity-framework-data-model-for-an-asp-net-mvc-application
Good questions, Darryl. Here are my responses to your bullet points:
Defining separate model classes that match the data models that EF creates is generally a good idea for the simple sake of separating your data access "stuff" from your business model objects that will get used throughout your app. Some people don't like this approach because it creates some amount of overhead when it comes to mapping your entities to POCOs but, if you use a tool such as AutoMapper, the overhead is minimal. The benefit lies in you creating a layer of separation between you and your (likely) evolving data model.
You could define validation logic in a buddy class (just a partial class that sits along-side your entity) but that would mean that you would be using that entity across your app and some would debate that that isn't the best idea. The alternative method, as mentioned above, is to create your own POCOs to mirror the entities that EF creates and place your validation attributes on the POCOs.
I mentioned this in the previous item but the way to do this would be to define buddy classes. Give EF buddy classes a Google and you should find plenty of examples on how to do that.
Just to add to all of this, if you choose to create POCO classes that mirror your EF entities, tools like AutoMapper can handle fairly complex relationships when it comes to mapping classes. So, if you have foreign key relationships in your data model, AutoMapper can understand that and map your POCO classes accordingly (i.e.: You have an entity that has a 1-to-many relationship and a POCO with a list of objects to mirror that relationship.)
I hope some of that helps...
Is there a way to compose queries from 2 different entity models if the models are hitting the same underlying database.
The scenario I have is this:
I have a framework that uses EF for data access.(EDM 1)
I have a client application that uses services of the framework and also uses EF for it's own data access.(EDM2)
There are situations where I need to compose queries and join on entities that span the 2 EDMs.
Is there a way to do this without getting the data in memory from the first EDM and then apply additional predicates/joins in memory from the entities of the 2nd EDM?
I hope I'm articulating this the right way
EDIT
#Ladislav Mrnka:
The first EDM is the data access layer for a reusable framework.
It doesn't make sense to couple the EF generated entities from this EDM with
those of the consuming client
It defeats reusabilty of the API if I did this and I'd have to carry around additonal bloat
(EF metadata and DB tables of the client) everytime I wanted to redeploy the framework.
Also this would make managing the model in the designer unwieldy.
I'm currently using what you mention n item 7 as the solutuon and the performance is abysmal
due to the fact that I have to end up returning more data(i.e. entities) than needed from framework using
EDM1 and then filter out the ones not needed based on predicates/conditions based on value of
properties from entities in the second EDM. End result is a huge performance degradation and an unhappy DBA.
For this reason I ended up pushing the logic needed to retrieve the entities
to a SPROC in which I can access the tables that both EDMs use and apply the predicates needed
and have the entire query run in the DB as opposed to bringing the data in memory
and then filter out unnecessary ones.Downside is that I can't use LINQ
Item 8 that you mention sounds interesting but from what it sounds like I doubt that
you get strong typing at design time, or do you?
Can you upload your code sample someplace so that I can try it out?
Important edit
There is no build in support for achieving this with two ObjectContext types. Your query must always be executed against single ObjectContext.
Probably the best way to go: This was interesting enough for me to try it myself. I started with very simple idea. Two EDMX files (used with POCO T4 generators), each containing single entity. I take metadata description from second connection string and added it to first connection string. I used ObjectContext and ObjectSet directly. By doing this I was able to query and modify both entities from single ObjectContext instance. I also tryed to create query joining entities from both models and it worked.
This obviously works only if both EDMX map to the same database (same db connection string).
The important part is connections string:
<configuration>
<connectionStrings>
<add name="TestEntities" connectionString="metadata=res://*/FirstModel.csdl|res://*/FirstModel.ssdl|res://*/FirstModel.msl|res://*/SecondModel.csdl|res://*/SecondModel.ssdl|res://*/SecondModel.msl;provider=System.Data.SqlClient;provider connection string="Data Source=.;Initial Catalog=Test;Integrated Security=True;MultipleActiveResultSets=True"" providerName="System.Data.EntityClient" />
</connectionStrings>
</configuration>
This connection string contains metadata from two models - FirstModel.edmx and SecondModel.edmx.
Another problem is to force EF to use mapping from both these files. Each EDMX file must define unique container for SSDL and CSDL. ObjectContext offers property called DefaultContainerName. This property can be set directly or through some constructor overloads. Once you set this property you bind your ObjectContext instance to single EDMX - for this scenario you must not set this property. Omitting DefaultContainerName can have some consequences because some features and declarations can stop working (you will get runtime errors). You should not have problems with POCO unless you want to use some advanced features. You will most probably have proplems if you are using Entity objects (heavy EF entities. All methods using entity sets defined as strings are dependent on container. Due to this I suggest using such configuration only when necessary - for cross models queries.
Last problem is generating entities and "strongly typed" derived ObjectContext. The way to go is modify T4 template so that one template reads data from multiple EDMX files and generates context end entities for all of them - I already doing this in my project and it works. Default T4 implementation doesn't follow needed approach described in previous paragraph. Derived ObjectContext from default T4 implementation is dependent on single EDMX and entity container.
This part has been written before previous edit.
I'm leaving the rest of information just because some of them can be useful in other scenarios including work with multiple databases.
ORM like entity framework operates on top of mapping between object world and database world. In EF the object world is described by CSDL, database world is described as SSDL and mapping between them is described as MSL (all are just XML with well known schema). At design time these descriptions are part of model stored in EDMX file. During compilation these descriptions are extracted from EDMX and by default included as resource files to compiled assembly.
When you create instance of ObjectContext it receives connections string which contains reference to CSDL, SSDL and MSL resource files. SSDL or MSL do not specify include element to add information from other files. CSDL offers Using element which will allow you reusing existing mapping but this feature is not supported by designer. ConnectionString is used to initialize EntityConnection instance which is in turn used to initialize ObjectContext's MetadataWorkspace (runtime mapping information). Also ObjectContext doesn't provide any functionality of nesting multiple contexts into hiearchy. Connection string can't contain reference to multiple instances of these files. Edit: It can. I just tested it. See the initial paragraphs.
When you run Linq or ESQL query on the instance of ObjectContext it usese MSL to map your entities or POCO classes (defined by CSDL) into DB query (defined by SSDL description of database tables). If it doesn't have this information it will not work (and it can't have that information if it is stored in separate EDMX).
So how to solve this problem? There are several ways:
Always consider: Merge your mapping into one file (if multiple files are used for same database). That is supposed way to use EF and as you mentioned you are querying same DB so two EF models are not needed.
Duplicate entity description in second model. If you use EF4 and POCO you can map same descriptions from multiple models into one POCO class definition. I don't like this solution but sometimes it can help.
Define DB View or Stored procedure containing your query (or core of your query) and map it in one model to new entity.
Use DefiningQuery in one model (you will probably need 3rd one if you use Update from database feature) and map it to new entity. DefiningQuery is custom SQL query defined in SSDL instead of table or view description.
Use Function with custom CommandText specifying DB query. It is similar to using DefiningQuery and it has the same limitation. You must manually (in EDMX) map the result of the function into new complex type (another difference to DefiningQuery which is mapped to new entity).
Define new type for result of the query (properties of the type must have same names as returned columns in query) and use ObjectContext's ExecuteStoreQuery (only in EF4).
Divide query into two parts each executed separately on its own context and use linq-to-objects to get result. I don't like this solution.
This one is only high level idea - I didn't try it and I don't know if it works. As described above runtime mapping is dependent on the content of MetadataWorkspace instance which is filled from EntityConnection. EntityConnection also provides constructor which receives MetadataWorkspace instance directly. So generally if it would be possible to fill MetadataWorkspace from multiple EDMX you will not need multiple ObjectContext instances but your mapping would be still separated into two EDMXs. This would hopefully allow you writing custom Linq queries on top of two mapping files). Edit: It should be possible because it is exactly what EF is doing if you define multiple mappings in connection string.
Use CSDL Using feature for breaking the model into multiple reused parts.