Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context? We are running into massive development-time performance problems when editing the EDMX file (it takes 1.5 minutes to save). I've moved our non-insert/update/delete UDFs/stored procs to some custom T4 templates that automatically generate model-first code, but I can't seem to get OnModelCreating to be called when EDMX is involved.
Other things we've considered, but won't work for one reason or another:
We can't (reasonably) separate our code to multiple contexts as there is a lot of overlap in our entity relationships. It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route regret it.
We tried having 2 different contexts, but there are quite a few joins between Entities & UDFs. This may be our last hope, but I'd REALLY like to avoid it.
We can't switch to Dapper since we have unfortunately made heavy use of IQueryable.
We tried to go completely to Code-First, but there are features that we are using in EDMX that aren't supported (mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping).
Take a look at the following link. I answered another question in a similar fashion:
How to use Repository pattern using Database first approach in entity framework
As I mentioned in that post, I would personally try to switch to a Code First approach and get rid of the EDMX files as it is already deprecated and most importantly, the maintenance effort is considerable and much more complex compared with the Code First approach.
It is not that hard switching to Code First from a Model First approach. Some steps and images down below:
Display all files at the project level and expand the EDMX file. You will notice that the EDMX file has a .TT file which will have several files nested, the Model Context and POCO clases between them as .cs or .vb classes (depending on the language you are using). See image down below:
Unload the project, right click and then edit.
See the image below, notice the dependencies between the context and the TT file
Remove the dependencies, the xml element should look like the image below:
Repeat the procedure for the Model classes (The ones with the model definition)
Reload your project, remove the EDMX file(s)
You will probably need to do some tweeks and update names/references.
I did this a few times in the past and it worked flawlessly on production. You can also look for tools that do this conversion for you.
This might be a good opportunity for you to rethink the architecture as well.
BTW: Bullet point 4 shouldn't be a show stopper for you. You can map/use Stored Procedures via EF. Look at the following link:
How to call Stored Procedure in Entity Framework 6 (Code-First)?
It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route [multiple contexts] regret it.
I'm not one of them.
Your core problem is a context that gets too large. So break it up. I know that inevitably there will be entities that should be shared among several contexts, which may give rise to duplicate class names. An easy way to solve this is to rename the classes into their context-specific names.
For example, I have an ApplicationUser table (who hasn't) that maps to a class with the same name in the main context, but to a class AuthorizationUser in my AuthorizationContext, or ReportingUser in a ReportingContext. This isn't a problem at all. Most use cases revolve around one context type anyway, so it's impossible to get confused.
I even have specialized contexts that work on the same data as other contexts, but in a more economical way. For example, a context that doesn't map to calculated columns in the database, so there are no reads after inserts and updates (apart from identity values).
So I'd recommend to go for it, because ...
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context?
No, there isn't. Both approaches have different ways of building the DbModel (containing the store model, the class model, and the mappings between both). In a generated DbContext you even see that an UnintentionalCodeFirstException is thrown, to drive home that you're not supposed to use that method.
mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping
As said in another answer, mapping CUD actions to stored procedures is supported in EF6 code-first.
I got here from a link in your comment on a different question, where you asked:
you mentioned that code-first & database-first is "technically possible" could you explain how to accomplish that?
First, the context of the other question was completely different. The OP there was asking if it was possible to use both database-first and code-first methodologies in the same project, but importantly, not necessarily the same context. My saying that it was "technically possible" applies to the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no way to utilize both code-first and database-first in the same context. Actually, to be a bit more specific, let's say there's no way to utilize an existing database and also migrate that same database with new entities.
The terminology gets a bit confused here due to some unfortunate naming by Microsoft when EF was being developed. Originally, you had just Model-first and Database-first. Both utilized EDMX. The only difference was that Model-first would let you design your entities and create a database from that, while Database-first took an existing database and created entities from that.
With EF 4.1, Code-first was introduced, which discarded EDMX entirely and let you work with POCOs (plain old class objects). However, despite the name, Code-first can and always has been able to work with an existing database or create a new one. Code-first, then is really Model-first and Database-first, combined, minus the horrid EDMX. Recently, the EF team has finally taken it a step further and deprecated EDMX entirely, including both the Model-first and Database-first methodologies. It is not recommended to continue to use either one at this point, and you can expect EDMX support to be dropped entirely in future versions of Visual Studio.
With all that said, let's go with the facts. You cannot both have an existing database and a EF-managed database in a single context. You would at least need two: one for your existing tables and one for those managed by EF. More to the point, these two contexts must reference different databases. If there are any existing tables in an EF-managed database, EF will attempt to remove them. Long and short, you have to segregate your EF-managed stuff from your externally managed stuff, which means you can't create foreign keys between entities in one context and another.
Your only real option here is to just do everything "database-first". In other words, you'll have to just treat your database as existing and manually create new tables, alter columns, etc. without relying on EF migrations at all. In this regard, you should also go ahead and dump the EDMX. Generate all your entities as POCOs and simply disable the database initializer in your context. In other words, Code-first with an existing database. I have additional information, if you need it.
Thank you to everyone for the well thought out and thorough answers.
Many of these other answers assume that the stored procedure mappings in EF Code-First work the same, but they do not. I'm a bit fuzzy on this as it's been about 6 months since I looked at it, but I believe as of EF 6.3 code first stored procedures require that you pass every column from your entity to your insert/update stored procedure and that you only pass the key column(s) to your delete procedure. There isn't an option to pick and choose which columns you can pass. We have a requirement to maintain who deleted a record so we have to pass some additional information besides just a simple key.
That being said, what I ended up doing was using a T4 template to automatically generate my EDMX/Context/Model files from the database (with some additional meta-data). This took our developer time experience down from 1.5 minutes to about 5 seconds.
My hope is EF stored procedure mappings will be improved to achieve parody with EDMX and I can then just code-generate the Code-First mappings and remove the EDMX generation completely.
I have code first classes which are generated from my existing db using ADO.NET Entity Data Model. Now I've added some new tables to the database.
I want to know if its possible to create associated code classes from the new db tables without (re)creating the model again from scratch?
Yes it is, if you use Reverse Engineer Code First to do so. It will create POCOs exactly like Code-First, but it will do so based completely on the current database. No .edmx file and no T4 template. Just Code-First.
You should know, by the way, that this (along with regular Code-First) are going to be the only ones allowed in EF7. They are getting rid of many things to try to slim it down, and both Model- and Database-First got the ax (at least, for now). This blog post from Microsoft's ADO.NET blog explains that, along with some other features.
I'm following an MSDN article on applying the Repository Pattern and the Unit Of Work Pattern to Entity Framework, but I'm stuck at the mapping between the custom-made domain models and the as-yet-nonexistant database.
The article has me create two simple POCOs, Employee and TimeCard. It also walks through creating generic repositories and custom implementations therein. (I'm using the custom repositories so I can try to keep EF dependencies in the data access assembly.) However, they sort of glaze over an important step in the mapping. The article says:
With the POCOs in place we can create an Entity Data Model (EDM) in Visual Studio (see figure 1). We will not use the EDM to generate code for our entities. Instead, we want to use the entities we lovingly craft by hand. We will only use the EDM to generate our database schema and provide the metadata EF4 needs to map objects into the database.
The "Figure 1" it references is here:
But that's all it says on the subject. There's an aside on how to generate POCOs from an EDMX. There's lots of information via Google on how to generate POCOs, generate EDMX from a database, etc. But in this walk-through we already have the POCOs and I need to use them in the EDMX which would, in turn, generate the database (I'm assuming, based on other code-first walk-throughs).
I've added an "ADO.NET Entity Data Model" to the project, which is basically a blank canvas. But I'm not seeing how to add my existing POCOs to that canvas. Do I have to re-create them manually on the design surface (which would be a pretty significant duplication problem in a larger domain)? If so, how do they map to the existing ones?
Typically when you use the designer the flow is the opposite - you create the model with the designer (or create/update the model from the database) and then the code is created for you. The created code can be either the EF1 style code with entities derived from EntityObject and attributes etc. which is created with a Single File Generator which is a part of VS (Code Generation Strategy set to "Default") or the code can be created with T4 templates (Code Generation Strategy set to "None") in which case you need to add T4 templates to your project. EF matches POCOs with Entities from the edmx file by convention (names of entities have to be the same, names and types of properties have to match etc.). In the article for some reason they went the opposite way which is weird since it requires that you create all the entities and relationships with the designer manually (since the designer does not know how to create entities from the code) and make sure that the requirements for the conventions (you may not even be aware of some of them) are met. However when you start with code the better approach is to use the EF Code First approach and skip the designer entirely. Code First can create database from your code. It also contains migrations feature which allows evolving your database along with your code. Finally (as you seem to use Visual Studio 2010) you could use EF6 which allows using all the goodness that was previously only available on .NET Framework 4.5 to be used on .NET Framework 4. See here for more details: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/
*the names are going to change in the new version designer that supports EF6 and works with Visual Studio 2012 and Visual Studio 2013
EDIT to address questions from the comment
If you would like to use Code First would use the DbContext API which is a streamlined wrapper of the ObjectContext API. Here is a walkthrough that should help get you started.
You can still use Code First if you have an existing database - the difference is that you will not be able to use migrations. The easiest way to get started with this is to use EF Power Tools. Take a look at this tutorial to see how to do that.
More help here
We are about to start using EF as our ORM. We have our own MetaData representing the databse stracture and we will generate whatever we need off of that.
We are wondering whether to use the "old" EDMX approace, or to use the new EDMX free approach (wiht DbSet and DbContext). As we do our own code/edmx generation it seems odd to generate an EDMX and then generate objects and context off of it.
The thing is I don't see much talk about about the EDMX free approach. Is it being used by anyone? Can someone with experience share their impressions? Are there known limitations? Are there pros and cons?
Asher
Are you asking if anybody is using code-first? :) By checking the number of questions in entity-framework-4.1 and code-first and ef-code-first I guess people are using it a lot. There were several questions about code-first x non code-first. Some of I answered:
EF POCO code only VS EF POCO with Entity Data Model
EF Model First or Code First Approach?
EF 4.1 Code-first vs Model/Database-first
Generally there are four approaches:
Model first (database generated from EDMX)
Database first (EDMX generated from database)
Code first (database generated from code mapping)
Database first with code mapping (code mapping manually created for existing database or manually updated mapping generated by EF Power Tools CTP)
Selection of the approach usually depends on the way how you want to develop application (as described in linked answers). It also depends if you want to use ObjectContext API or DbContext API. The former one is usually used with first two approaches (but the secret is it should work with code-first as well) the later one with all of them.
Code first has some limitations - it doesn't support all mapping features EDMX does for example:
Stored procedures mapping (it doesn't mean you cannot execute SP when using code first)
SQL functions mapping
Advanced EDMX features like defining queries, query views, model defined functions
etc.
What I don't understand is why are you trying to combine your code generation tool with EF. Either use your stuff or use EF's stuff. You will avoid complications and incompatibilities.
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.