I understand that, when working with POCO entities, you should work against your model (POCO Entities). Also I supose that part of the benefits of programming against models like those should provide benefits like defining classes that don't match exactly what you see in the db.
However, there are simple operations that I don't know how to do and that I assume they should be possible. For example, in some scenarios it can be useful to change the name of one column (atribute in the entity). Also I would like to know if it's possible to generate POCO models that only represents some fields of the table that supports the object in the db.
Is there any documentation about this kind of operations?
¡Thanks a lot!
POCO entity is just mapped class. The model in your question means mapping. The point of mapping is to define map between class and database table including mapping between properties and columns. So you can have different property and column names as long as it is correctly configured in mapping.
So if you are using EDMX file (designer) for generating the mapping you can simply change the name of property or entity and it will be reflected in your generated POCO entity. Also EDMX file will correctly update mapping. If you are using code first you must manually define mapping either through data annotations or through fluent API.
Entity should represent single data structure persisted to the database. Because of this each table can be mapped only once. Moreover EDMX designer demands that each non-nullable column without default value must be mapped to the entity. POCO generator is not tool for generating your different data views. What you are looking for is called projection. There are ways how to include mapped projections in EDMX file (DefiningQuery and QueryView) but both requires manual modifications of EDMX file and the first one also requires manual maintenance of EDMX file.
If you need to remove some properties from entity just to improve some query or because you don't need all data for some operation you can always use projection to anonymous or custom class directly in the query.
var query = from x in context.XEntities
select new XView
{
A = x.A,
B = x.B
};
POCO generator is only tool for generating classes for mapped entities and projections not for generating all data related classes you will ever need.
Related
I have a database model that can be modify by users at runtime:
adding new columns to existing tables
adding new tables
I want to use Entity Framework Core to access such model.
I'm able of creating the types for the new tables and fields using reflection but I'm not able of creating the DbSet members inside the DbContext class for these new types as the DbSet needs to know the type at compile time.
Does anyone know if this is something that can be achieved with EF Core?
A way of injecting the type to the DbSet member dynamically?
It sounds pretty weird to me that the users are the ones defining the tables and their columns, relationships, etc on runtime. Probably what you actually need is to have a structure of tables to support dynamic data, which is much more manageable, that is, a table that defines the UserModels, another table that defines the properties of those models, etc. That will vary a lot depending on your needs.
You could also consider using some special properties like XML data-type fields as suggested here: Dynamically adding a property to an entity framework object
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
I'm creating my db using code-first and entity framework. I'm defining all my models which works great, but now I have a Page class which can contain Blocks.
These Blocks have a base class with ID, BlockType, Position, Name etcetera but there are different types of blocks with different properties which are classes that inherit from this base class. I'm wondering how I can setup my models so the page can have a collection of 'blocks' without storing the custom properties in a comma seperated list or something like that.
Is it possible? And what is the 'good' way to model this..
Thanks in advance!
Entity Framework supports inheritance. There are various strategies to map your object model - base and derived classes - to a database schema. The most important are:
Table per hierarchy (TPH): Base class and all derived classes will be mapped to a single table in the database. Any custom properties of derived classes will appear as separate columns in the table and the table contains a discriminator column to distinguish between the types. EF manages to load the columns needed to materialize a specific type.
Table per type (TPT): The base class has its own table which only contains the base class properties. Every derived entity gets another table that has the additional properties of this type. EF manages to load the properties from the different tables (creating appropriate joins) that contain all properties to materialize a specific type.
TPT is - in my opinion - the cleaner approach to implement inheritance, but it currently (EF <= 4.3) has performance problems compared to TPH due to suboptimal SQL generated by EF. The problem will be solved in EF 5.0. But TPH will still remain the more performant way of mapping because it doesn't need to join multiple tables.
Benefits and drawbacks of the strategies are discussed in detail in the linked blog posts. In the blog you can also find the third (less often used) option - Table per concrete type (TPC).
Trying to understand Entity Framework. My approach is database first. However I would like to define other entites in the model that is closer to my business objects. I guess I could write queries in the db and include them in the model. But I would also like to define entirely new entities in the model though they would be based on underlying tables in the db. How do I do that - does anyone know a tutorial?
Regards
Bjørn
db Oldtimer, EF Newbie
Database first means that you have existing database and you can either create model by updating from database or manually. You can use wizard to create initial model and modify it manually to define new entities but you must not use update from database any more or some of your changes will be deleted. Also your custom modifications must follow EF mapping rules (for example it is not directly possible to map multiple entities to the same table except some more advanced mapping scenarios like splitting and inheritance) and some of them (custom queries) must be done directly in EDMX source (XML) because designer doesn't support them - this requires more complex knowledge of EF mapping and it will be definitely hard for newbie.
You can check specification of that XML. For entities mapped to custom queries you will have to use DefiningQuery element in SSDL part of EDMX.
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.