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.
Related
My application is broken down into several assemblies.
The MyProject.Infrastructure assembly contains all of the Domain objects such as Person and Sale as well as interfaces repositories such as IPersonRepository and ISaleRepository.
The MyProject.Data assembly contains concrete implementations of these repositories.
The repositories pull data from a database and instantiate new domain classes. For example, IPersonRepository.GetPersonByNumber(customerNumber) will read a customer from the data source, create a new Person class, populate it and return to the caller.
I'm now starting to see cases where adding some methods to my Domain classes might make sense, such as Person.UpdateAddress(address).
Is it ok to put this method on my Person class as a virtual method, and then create derived classes inside my Data layer which override those methods to provide the desired functionality?
I want to make sure I'm not going breaking any DDD conventions.
I know I also have the option of putting these methods on the repository - e.g. IPersonRepository.UpdatePersonAddress(person, address).
Person.UpdateAddress should definitely be in your domain, not in your Repository. UpdateAddress is logic and you should try to avoid logic inside your repository. If you're working with Entity framework there is no need for 'data classes'.
Most ORMs have change trackers which will persist related entities automatically when you persist the main one (provided you declared the right relations in the mapping configuration), so you don't need UpdatePersonAddress() on your Repository. Just do whatever you want to do at the object level in Person.UpdateAddress(address) without thinking about persistence, this is not the place for that.
What you need though is an object that will be called in execution context-aware code to flush changes to the persistent store when you think it's time to save these changes. It might be a Unit of Work that contains the Entity Framework DbContext, for instance.
I recently, out of ignorance and lack of time, merged the domain models (POCO entity classes) from several projects into one 'DataModel' project, because I didn't want to duplicate dedicated DbContexts over all the projects. It struck me as ideal that something generic might be done, like a DbContext extension, to which one can add DbSet instances from various client projects.
I have read mention of such things, normally in the same circles as authors that contend - and I agree wholeheartedly - that the repository functionality is fulfilled completey by the DbSet class.
Can anyone offer any advice for building a generic DbContext which can exist in one project, where other projects can all have their domain models (sets of domain entities) registered with the shared DbContext, where they are all allocated they own DbSet to act as their repository?
building a generic DbContext which can exist in one project, where other projects can all have their domain models (sets of domain entities) registered
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure what you would gain by that.
For one, you'd never be able to simply type db.Customer (or similar). It should always be genericdb.Set<Customer>(), not knowing whether genericdb knows about Customer at all. (It may not have been registered).
Then, how should this registering take place? There are two ways to let a context map a class to a database model:
Creating a DbSet property in a DbContext-derived class and rely on code-first default conventions concerning table and column names, pluralization, etc.
Providing mapping configuration.
The first option defeats the purpose of a generic context class, so you'd have to register the domain classes by supplying EntityTypeConfiguration<T>s for each class in the domain, also for classes that normally could do without. (This should be done in the context's constructor, by the way.)
A further implication would be that somewhere you'd need a component/service that knows which groups of classes belong together and is able to deliver a coherent list of configurations. So, in stead of having dedicated contexts as an organizing principle out of the box you'd have to create your own organizer.
But back to the start. Couldn't you create a DAL that contains a DbContext factory that supplies the contexts as they previously existed for your projects? You don't have to duplicate dedicated DbContext classes this way.
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
I want to build a system where user plugins can implement an interface for different data elements which are to be stored in a database. Now since I don't know the details of implementation until runtime, I can't create my database to encompass all derived types... but is it possible to perhaps:
a) Manage entities only at the interface level, so regardless of the concrete types implemented by the user, I could manage the relationships between entities at the interface level
b) have the plugins themselves manage the EF persistence of the concrete classes, so in the end we have one entity context to manage the relationships between entities at the interface level, and additional contexts to store concrete implementations in another database
Its a long shot, but I'm hoping someone would know if something like this might work.
Correct me if I'm wrong but It sounds like you want to implement an EAV (Entity Attribute Value) structure using the Entity Framework
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