I've tried to use Entity Framework 4 and POCO for my MVC 3 project. May be, I don't understand the main idea of this ORM, but the problem is following:
I added ADO .NET Entity Data Model and make model according to database.
I clicked Add Code Generation Item and added ADO .NET POCO Entity Generator.
It makes classes for every database table.
I want to add some methods to work with data (Add, Update, Delete, GetAll etc) to appropriate models.
For LINQTOSQL I added partial classes and placed them to Models. But now I can't do it because:
a) Models folder has classes with the same names, which was created by POCO.
b) If I place my partial class in the another folder, it will be another namespace - so, such classes won't be partial one.
c) If I place my code in POCO classes, it can be destroyed during update POCO.
How can I use it? Where sould I place my methods for data working?
Is the best way to make for POCO and EF the other project - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2010/01/25/walkthrough-poco-template-for-the-entity-framework.aspx?
First of all you don't have to write your CRUD inside POCO,
There are many places where you can do it like in edmx.cs file or write one more layer which is called as CRUD Services which handles the Database operations using context object.
Now coming to your questions,
Create separate Models folder and place the Model classes in there.
Your Model class may like this,
EmployeeDepartmentModel
{
prop EmpList List(Emp);
prop DeptList List(Dept);
//Emp and Dept are my POCOs
}
So now I have to fill both of these list(Your CRUD question),
For that, I will Create one method in Controller class(its better to write such logic in some another library, but for time being I suggest you to create in Controller),
FillTheModel()
{
EmployeeDepartmentModel.EmpList = EDMX.GetAllEmployees;
EmployeeDepartmentModel.DeptList = EDMX.GetAllDepartments;
}
Now you can bind this model with your view.
You can place the partial classes in another folder and modify the namespace.
I agree with allisewell, but if you really want to add parts to partial classes, give files another name,
e.g. MyPoco.Part2.cs or modify t4 template to name generated files
e.g. Poco.Generated.cs
Related
I am using Entity Framework and want to do some changes in context class
For ex. I am creating one more constructor for connection string but issue is every time when I open .edmx file and save it, then my changes are no longer exist.
Is there any way for me to tell .edmx not to undo my changes in context class or T4 classes?
You cannot change the generated code. You can add things to it since the classes that are generated are partial classes.
Add your additions to a separate file containing the custom part of the partial class.
See here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wa80x488.aspx
An alternative is to modify the T4 template yourself and consistently apply your specific needs to the generated classes.
It is common practice to do this when for example you want INotifyPropertyChanged as interface on every class.
This approach only works if your changes are generic in nature. If you want to do a specific change in only one class then this solution does not work for you.
Another alternative is to take full control of the classes by using code first.
You can mark the methods and properties with special attributes to map them to the db. And there is a reverse engineering option to create these classes from an existing db. You would reverse engineer once, and then take control of the classes and tweak them to your needs
I generally take the last approach myself right now, because it is not using partial classes all code that belongs to a class is all in the same file.
The answer of Maarten is also fine, but there are 2 more options.
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 have an Entity called "Product", this entity, through table mapping, merges 6 tables that have a 1 to 1..0 relationship with "Products". This all works wonderfully. There is another property I want to add to "Products", which is sBBR_rate, this value is not in a table that has a direct 1 to 1..0 relationship, it is related through a link table as below:
When I import the two tables into the EDM, I can't see a way in the "Mapping Details" of
"Product" to reference the sBBR_rate. I can reference RatesLink and link that to the "Products" primary key, however, I cannot reference the BBR table.
The methods I can think of to work "around" this is are as follows:
Create a view, reference the view in the EDM.
Create an SP and use a function import to retrieve the BBR when it is required.
Create a "Rates" entity in the EDM that can then draw down the sBBR_rate into it. Navigate to the Products BBR through Product.Rates.sBBR_rate.
Is there a better way I can do this that doesn't feel so much like a fudge? Perhaps by directly editing the XML of the Mapping or Conceptual layers of the EDM?
Thanks for your input.
Because the multiplicities on the Product -> RatesLink and RatesLink -> BBR relationships are 0 to 1, you should be able to access the sBBR_rate from a Product instance like this:
myProductInstance.RatesLink.BBR.sBBR_rate
I can see on the EDM screenshot that RatesLink has a Product and BBR property, which would indicate this should be available - is it?
On a side note, if it makes sense for the sBBR_rate property to commonly be accessed directly from Product, you might want to follow the law of demeter and create a property on Product which returns it directly.
The model we are using is to extend entities by using partial classes which we've found useful so we can get additional properties in the autogenerated classes (we are using a POCO T4 template to autogen but I believe this would work just as well with the default entity object generation).
So we would have
//.. this one is from the T4 template
public partial class Product
{
//.. all the autogenerated methods
}
and in a separate file that isn't autogened
//.. now in a separate file created by me
public partial class Product
{
//.. my custom properties and methods to make the entities more usable
public string BBRRate
{
get {return this.RatesLink.BBR.sBBR_rate; }
}
}
This means that I can just do
myProduct.BBRRte
I know there are other ways to do this by amending the edmx file but this one we found easy to implement. You just need to watch performance because you are potentially loading extra data. Also we did this with LazyLoading turned on but with more work you wouldn't have to
We also experimented with hooking into the ObjectMaterialized event in the ObjectContext class to preload some of these properties. Using a custom interface i.e. IMaterialisable we could check if the object was of that type then call a method (Materialise) to prepopulate some of the properties. This seems like a good idea but we didn't widely use it - it was easy to load up too much stuff. If you do the load on the properties in the partial classes then it becomes more efficient. Just my experience.
Anyway - as always an interesting question and good luck again with your dev.
EDIT
There is a rule that everything in the store layer must be represented some way in your conceptual layer. Therefore removing the tables from the conceptual layer but bring through some of the properties I don't think will work in it's gross form. Therefore I can think of two further options
Create a View on the database and bring that in as you have already mentioned. TBH this is what I would do.
Use the DefiningQuery element directly in your xml (the store layer) and map the query through to a custom entity of your exact design. Julie Lerman describes this as the ultimate escape hatch for Entity Framework.
Remember though - if you manual amend the XML in point 2 then you lose the ability to automatically update the module through the IDE
I ended up creating a view and then linking this view in the EDM, this worked a treat.
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.
Let's say I have two tables in a database: projects and users. I create two models, that extend Zend_Db_Table_Abstract: Model_DbTable_Users and Model_DbTable_Projects.
Now, is it a good pattern to create an instance of Model_DbTable_Projects inside the Model_DbTable_Users class ? In other words: is it OK to put any logic in this model, or should I create another class, that uses Model_DbTable_Users and Model_DbTable_Projects?
I use to put all the logic in models, that extend Zend_Db_Table_Abstract, but in large projects it can make code very unclean. So, can you give me any advice on models architecture(links on articles would be great!).
I was the project lead for the Zend Framework project through version 1.0. My contributions were mainly in the Zend_Db component.
I frequently advise that people should use the Domain Model pattern and avoid the Anemic Domain Model antipattern. Remember that a Table is not a Model.
Your Model is a class (extending no base class) for code that encapsulates your business logic. The relationship between a Model and a Table isn't IS-A, it's HAS-A (or HAS-MANY). The Model treats database persistence as an implementation detail. The consumer of a Model should have no clue about your database structure (this allows you to change database structure without changing the Model's interface).
I'm basically repeating the answer I gave to Models in the Zend Framework.
Here is some more reading:
http://weierophinney.net/matthew/archives/202-Model-Infrastructure.html
http://blog.astrumfutura.com/archives/373-The-M-in-MVC-Why-Models-are-Misunderstood-and-Unappreciated.html
http://n4.nabble.com/Another-Model-Design-Thread-td670076.html