I have started working on a new project and am switching from LinqToSQL to EF 4.1 as my ORM.
I already have a database set up to work with and so am going with the database first approach. By default the EF generates a context which extends ObjectContext. I wanted to know if a good approach would be to replace it with DbContext.
Most of the available examples deal with only Code First and DbContextbut DBContext can be used with Database First too. Are there any advantages I get by using the DBContext? From what I have read the DBContext is a simplified version of the ObjectContext and makes it easier to work with. Are there any other advantages or disadvantages?
You will not replace anything manually. You will need DbContext T4 Generator available at VS Gallery. Don't touch your autogenerated files - your changes will be lost every time you modify EDMX file.
I answered similar question last year. Now my answer is mostly - for new users DbContext API is probably better. DbContext API is simplified - both in terms of usage and features but you can still get ObjectContext from DbContext and use features available only in ObjectContext API. On the other hand DbContext API has some additional performance impact and additional layer of bugs. In simple project you will probably not find any disadvantage in DbContext API - you will not see performance impact, you will not use corner features available only in ObjectContext and you will not be affected by occasional bugs.
A lot of information and blog posts was collected since DbContext API was released so you don't have to be afraid that you will not find description of the API. Also ADO.NET team now uses DbContext API as their flag ship.
I'm not a big fan of DbContext API but my opinion is not related to its functionality but to its existence - there is no need to have two APIs and split development capacity of ADO.NET team to maintain and fix two APIs doing the same. It only means that there is less capacity for implementation of really new features.
I'm using it now with Oracle on an add on to an existing application. The simplification that Ladislav refers to works well for me on this project as I am short on time and resources. I have not found any gotchas as long as you stick to simple CRUD operations and less than ~150 tables.
You can still use metadata annotations to provide basic validation and localization and there is enough documentation out there but you won't find much on official Microsoft sites.
Related
I was following this tutorial for EF Core with ASP.NET Core. The interesting thing is that this article states that 'the use of Repository and unit of work patterns is not always the best choice for applications that use EF', but in the tutorial of EF 5 the use of repository and unit of work patterns still is promoted even with a seperate tutorial part.
Reading old articles on stackoverflow it is reported that the reasons one would apply it is mainly for testing (dependency injection).
Reading further in the turial it is mentioned that 'The Entity Framework Core implements an in-memory database provider that can be used for testing'. I presume this is a new feature that was not there at the time of EF5. Does this mean that there is hardly any reason anymore to apply the use of repository and unit of work patterns in EF Core with ASP.NET Core?
There's many reasons and a long history for why there's so much confusion here. EF's DbContext used to not implement an interface, so it made mocking it difficult for testing purposes. However, that was corrected in EF 6, so since that time there's been absolutely no benefit, even for testing purposes, in using the repository/unit of work patterns.
EF Core is completely testable end-to-end and has an in-memory database provider as well now, which means you don't even need to mock it, though you very much can if you want.
Long and short, dump the repository and unit of work patterns. They've never been a good solution even when they had some use for testing, and since EF 6, they have been completely useless.
Now... let the flame war begin.
I am using Entity Framework 6 database-first. I am converting the project to implement the onion architecture to move towards better separation of concerns. I have read many articles and watched many videos but having some issues deciding on my solution structure.
I have 4 projects: Core, Infrastructure, Web & Tests.
From what I've learned, the .edmx file should be placed under my "Infrastructure" folder. However, I have also read about using the Repository and Unit of Work patterns to assist with EF decoupling and using Dependency Injection.
With this being said:
Will I have to create Repository Interfaces under CORE for ALL entities in my model? If so, how would one maintain this on a huge database? I have looked into automapper but found issues with it presenting IEnumererables vs. IQueryables but there is an extension available it has to hlep with this. I can try this route deeper but want to hear back first.
As an alternative, should I leave my edmx in Infrastructure and move the .tt T4 files for my entities to CORE? Does this present any tight coupling or a good solution?
Would a generic Repository interface work well with the suggestion you provide? Or maybe EF6 already resolves the Repository and UoW patterns issue?
Thank you for looking at my question and please present any alternative responses as well.
I found a similar post here that was not answered:
EF6 and Onion architecture - database first and without Repository pattern
Database first doesn't completely rule out Onion architecture (aka Ports and Adapters or Hexagonal Architecture, so you if you see references to those they're the same thing), but it's certainly more difficult. Onion Architecture and the separation of concerns it allows fit very nicely with a domain-driven design (I think you mentioned on twitter you'd already seen some of my videos on this subject on Pluralsight).
You should definitely avoid putting the EDMX in the Core or Web projects - Infrastructure is the right location for that. At that point, with database-first, you're going to have EF entities in Infrastructure. You want your business objects/domain entities to live in Core, though. At that point you basically have two options if you want to continue down this path:
1) Switch from database first to code first (perhaps using a tool) so that you can have POCO entities in Core.
2) Map back and forth between your Infrastructure entities and your Core objects, perhaps using something like AutoMapper. Before EF supported POCO entities this was the approach I followed when using it, and I would write repositories that only dealt with Core objects but internally would map to EF-specific entities.
As to your questions about Repositories and Units of Work, there's been a lot written about this already, on SO and elsewhere. You can certainly use a generic repository implementation to allow for easy CRUD access to a large set of entities, and it sounds like that may be a quick way for you to move forward in your scenario. However, my general recommendation is to avoid generic repositories as your go-to means of accessing your business objects, and instead use Aggregates (see DDD or my DDD course w/Julie Lerman on Pluralsight) with one concrete repository per Aggregate Root. You can separate out complex business entities from CRUD operations, too, and only follow the Aggregate approach where it is warranted. The benefit you get from this approach is that you're constraining how the objects are accessed, and getting similar benefits to a Facade over your (large) set of database entities.
Don't feel like you can only have one dbcontext per application. It sounds like you are evolving this design over time, not starting with a green field application. To that end, you could keep your .edmx file and perhaps a generic repository for CRUD purposes, but then create a new code first dbcontext for a specific set of operations that warrant POCO entities, separation of concerns, increased testability, etc. Over time, you can shift the bulk of the essential code to use this, while still keeping the existing dbcontext so you don't lose and current functionality.
I am using entity framework 6.1 in my DDD project. Code first works out very well if you want to do Onion Architecture.
In my project we have completely isolated Repository from the Domain Model. Application Service is what uses repository to load aggregates from and persist aggregates to the database. Hence, there is no repository interfaces in the domain (core).
Second option of using T4 to generate POCO in a separate assembly is a good idea. Please remember that your domain model (core) should be persistence-ignorant.
While generic repository are good for enforcing aggregate-level operations, I prefer using specific repository more, simply because not every Aggregate is going to need all of those generic repository operations.
http://codingcraft.wordpress.com/
We implemented a web application using EF 4.0 and ObjectContext. Now we would like to upgrade it to Ef 5 to get benefit of the performance improvements and new features, as described in Julie Lerman's
article.
From the Infrasctructure point of view, the passage seems pretty smooth:
- Target the project to .NET 4.5 (if new features like ENUM support are needed)
- Upgrade/Install EF 5
However I could not find on the net good articles speaking about the needed steps and connected risks in passing from ObjectContext to DbContext.
As for now, my approach would be to create a separate code branch and upgrade EF there. Then substituting ObjectContext with DbContaxt API and refactor arising errors.
Actually DbContext is a wrapper on top of ObjectContext developed to help developers in coding, therefore the exchange should (hopefully) be relatively smooth. We also use an interface as single point of contact to the Model, therefore this should also help to narrow down the required changes.
I guess that EF4.1 is recent to EF4.0, but I didn't find any book on EF4.1, but 2 books on EF4.0.
can I still buy the book on EF4.0 expecting that I will get most of the concept??
Thanks for helping.
According to The ADO.NET Team blog, there are two main features:
The DbContext API is a simplified abstraction over ObjectContext and a number of other types that were included in previous releases of the ADO.NET Entity Framework. The DbContext API surface is optimized for common tasks and coding patterns. DbContext can be used with Database First, Model First and Code First development.
Code First is a new development pattern for the ADO.NET Entity Framework and provides an alternative to the existing Database First and Model First patterns. Code First is focused around defining your model using C#/VB.NET classes, these classes can then be mapped to an existing database or be used to generate a database schema. Additional configuration can be supplied using Data Annotations or via a fluent API.
EF 4.0 books are good unless you are using one of those 2 features, because you won't find them in there.
But you have plenty of resources online about those new features (especially Code First).
You even have official tutorials:
Using DbContext
Code First walkthrough
I am about to start implementing the data access infrastructure of a project that was architected with an approach to DDD (it's my first attempt on DDD, so be gentle ;-) ).
I will be using Entity Framework. Until now, I was looking into the method teached by Julie Lerman on her great book, Programming Entity Framework, where ADO.NET POCO Entity Generator is used, with some changes to the T4 templates and some more custom code.
Today I started reading articles on EF4.1 and the ADO.NET DbContext Generator, using Database First approach, and I'm trying to decide with which one should I go.
DbContext and EF4.1's approach on DDD seems to be a nice, cleaner way than POCO Entities, but I'm afraid that it could lead to some issues in the near future, since EF4.1 is still in RC.
From ADO.NET team blog, I know that EF4.1 does not include:
Enum support
Spatial data type support
Stored Procedure support in Code First
Migration support in Code First
Customizable conventions in Code First
From my understanding, since I will be using Database First there is a smaller number of features that were not included.
In conclusion, my question is:
Can I replace POCO Entities Generator with EF4.1 DbContext Generator?
From a point of view of clean creation of POCO entities, there is no difference between the two generators. Both generators produce the same entities, however, ADO.NET POCO Entity Generator is based on ObjectContext's API, whereas ADO.NET DbContext Generator is based on DbContext's API.
DbContext's API has a few very nice new features (Local, Query on navigation property, etc.) and API is somehow simplified but at the same time it looks like some features used in ObjectContext API are missing in DbContext API (or at least it has not been explored enough yet).
EF 4.1 RC is go-live release. It means that you can build a real application with it because API will not change in RTW (only bugs will be fixed). Also RTW should be in the next month so I think you will not be ready with your application before the final version is shipped.
ObjectContext API or DbContext API? ObjectContext API is much better covered by documentation and blog posts. You can find plenty of examples about it. Also its limitations are already well known. DbContext API is new release. A very promising release, mostly because of the code-first approach. There is still a very limited number of blog posts, no book and the API is not proven enough. So it depends if you are ready to fight with new API? If not, then ObjectContext API is still a good choice because you don't need the code-first approach.