I am using uow and repository pattern.
I have having trouble configuring what is the right way to perform queries in methods that are called from the main methods.
To make it clear:
I have some Method:
GetSomthingFromDB(int someId)
{
using (var uow = new UnitOfWork())
{
//Get the study from Db withrelated Entities
IRepository<Study> studyRepository
=uow.GetRepository<Study();
Foreach(var finding in study.Findings)
{
SomeSubMethod(finding);
}
}
}
SomeSubMethod(Finding finding)
{
//Do all kind of stuff on a finding
}
OK, now in SomeSubMethod(), I need to get something from the Db, Lets say something from configuration table.
But I don't have uow inside the subMethod (could be that subMethods calls another subMethod, and Only there I need the uow again.
Should I pass uow from one Method to the other?
Should I pass the repository inner and inner?
Should I Use uow as a class member?
What is the best practice?
Thank you. Tal.
General info:
Keep the connection live cycle short as possbile
if you are using WPF or ASP view then you can keep the connection (uow) alive as long the view is active.
Desgin your methods with SRP
Should I pass uow from one Method to the other?
Yes, some times you need to pass the unitOfWork form method to other one.
You can pass it on private without any problem
If you pass it to a public method you have to take care about the method scope usage to avoid any concurrency issues.
Should I pass the repository inner and inner?
Same here repostiory belogn to a connection and, if your method is public and called from differents layers/threads, then you might get some concurrency issues.
Should I Use uow as a class member?
Yes, and the best thing if you pass it on the constuctor as parameter and without a setter.
I'm trying to get dependencies set up correctly in my Workflow application. It seems the best way to do this is using the Service Locator pattern that is provided by Workflow's WorkflowExtensions.
My workflow uses two repositories: IAssetRepository and ISenderRepository. Both have implementations using Entity Framework: EFAssetRepository, and EFSenderRepository, but I'd like both to use the same DbContext.
I'm having trouble getting both to use the same DbContext. I'm used to using IoC for dependency injection, so I thought I'd have to inject the DbContext into the EF repositories via their constructor, but this seems like it would be mixing the service locator and IoC pattern, and I couldn't find an easy way to achieve it, so I don't think this is the way forward.
I guess I need to chain the service locator calls? So that the constructor of my EF repositories do something like this:
public class EFAssetRepository
{
private MyEntities entities;
public EFAssetRepository()
{
this.entities = ActivityContext.GetExtension<MyEntities>();
}
}
Obviously the above won't work because the reference to ActivityContext is made up.
How can I achieve some form of dependency chain using the service locator pattern provided for WF?
Thanks,
Nick
EDIT
I've posted a workaround for my issue below, but I'm still not happy with it. I want the code activity to be able to call metadata.Require<>(), because it should be ignorant of how extensions are loaded, it should just expect that they are. As it is, my metadata.Require<> call will stop the workflow because the extension appears to not be loaded.
It seems one way to do this is by implementing IWorkflowInstanceExtension on an extension class, to turn it into a sort of composite extension. Using this method, I can solve my problem thus:
public class UnitOfWorkExtension : IWorkflowInstanceExtension, IUnitOfWork
{
private MyEntities entities = new MyEntities();
IEnumerable<object> IWorkflowInstanceExtension.GetAdditionalExtensions()
{
return new object[] { new EFAssetRepository(this.entities), new EFSenderRepository(this.entities) };
}
void IWorkflowInstanceExtension.SetInstance(WorkflowInstanceProxy instance) { }
public void SaveChanges()
{
this.entities.SaveChanges();
}
}
The biggest downside to doing it this way is that you can't call metadata.RequireExtension<IAssetRepository>() or metadata.RequireExtension<ISenderRepository>() in the CacheMetadata method of a CodeActivity, which is common practice. Instead, you must call metadata.RequireExtension<IUnitOfWork>(), but it is still fine to do context.GetExtension<IAssetRepository>() in the Execute() method of the CodeActivity. I imagine this is because the CacheMetadata method is called before any workflow instances are created, and if no workflow instances are created, the extension factory won't have been called, and therefore the additional extensions won't have been loaded into the WorkflowInstanceExtensionManager, so essentially, it won't know about the additional extensions until a workflow instance is created.
I am about to implement an Entity Framework 6 design with a repository and unit of work.
There are so many articles around and I'm not sure what the best advice is: For example I realy like the pattern implemented here: for the reasons suggested in the article here
However, Tom Dykstra (Senior Programming Writer on Microsoft's Web Platform & Tools Content Team) suggests it should be done in another article: here
I subscribe to Pluralsight, and it is implemented in a slightly different way pretty much every time it is used in a course so choosing a design is difficult.
Some people seem to suggest that unit of work is already implemented by DbContext as in this post, so we shouldn't need to implement it at all.
I realise that this type of question has been asked before and this may be subjective but my question is direct:
I like the approach in the first (Code Fizzle) article and wanted to know if it is perhaps more maintainable and as easily testable as other approaches and safe to go ahead with?
Any other views are more than welcome.
#Chris Hardie is correct, EF implements UoW out of the box. However many people overlook the fact that EF also implements a generic repository pattern out of the box too:
var repos1 = _dbContext.Set<Widget1>();
var repos2 = _dbContext.Set<Widget2>();
var reposN = _dbContext.Set<WidgetN>();
...and this is a pretty good generic repository implementation that is built into the tool itself.
Why go through the trouble of creating a ton of other interfaces and properties, when DbContext gives you everything you need? If you want to abstract the DbContext behind application-level interfaces, and you want to apply command query segregation, you could do something as simple as this:
public interface IReadEntities
{
IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity>();
}
public interface IWriteEntities : IReadEntities, IUnitOfWork
{
IQueryable<TEntity> Load<TEntity>();
void Create<TEntity>(TEntity entity);
void Update<TEntity>(TEntity entity);
void Delete<TEntity>(TEntity entity);
}
public interface IUnitOfWork
{
int SaveChanges();
}
You could use these 3 interfaces for all of your entity access, and not have to worry about injecting 3 or more different repositories into business code that works with 3 or more entity sets. Of course you would still use IoC to ensure that there is only 1 DbContext instance per web request, but all 3 of your interfaces are implemented by the same class, which makes it easier.
public class MyDbContext : DbContext, IWriteEntities
{
public IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity>()
{
return Set<TEntity>().AsNoTracking(); // detach results from context
}
public IQueryable<TEntity> Load<TEntity>()
{
return Set<TEntity>();
}
public void Create<TEntity>(TEntity entity)
{
if (Entry(entity).State == EntityState.Detached)
Set<TEntity>().Add(entity);
}
...etc
}
You now only need to inject a single interface into your dependency, regardless of how many different entities it needs to work with:
// NOTE: In reality I would never inject IWriteEntities into an MVC Controller.
// Instead I would inject my CQRS business layer, which consumes IWriteEntities.
// See #MikeSW's answer for more info as to why you shouldn't consume a
// generic repository like this directly by your web application layer.
// See http://www.cuttingedge.it/blogs/steven/pivot/entry.php?id=91 and
// http://www.cuttingedge.it/blogs/steven/pivot/entry.php?id=92 for more info
// on what a CQRS business layer that consumes IWriteEntities / IReadEntities
// (and is consumed by an MVC Controller) might look like.
public class RecipeController : Controller
{
private readonly IWriteEntities _entities;
//Using Dependency Injection
public RecipeController(IWriteEntities entities)
{
_entities = entities;
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(CreateEditRecipeViewModel model)
{
Mapper.CreateMap<CreateEditRecipeViewModel, Recipe>()
.ForMember(r => r.IngredientAmounts, opt => opt.Ignore());
Recipe recipe = Mapper.Map<CreateEditRecipeViewModel, Recipe>(model);
_entities.Create(recipe);
foreach(Tag t in model.Tags) {
_entities.Create(tag);
}
_entities.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("CreateRecipeSuccess");
}
}
One of my favorite things about this design is that it minimizes the entity storage dependencies on the consumer. In this example the RecipeController is the consumer, but in a real application the consumer would be a command handler. (For a query handler, you would typically consume IReadEntities only because you just want to return data, not mutate any state.) But for this example, let's just use RecipeController as the consumer to examine the dependency implications:
Say you have a set of unit tests written for the above action. In each of these unit tests, you new up the Controller, passing a mock into the constructor. Then, say your customer decides they want to allow people to create a new Cookbook or add to an existing one when creating a new recipe.
With a repository-per-entity or repository-per-aggregate interface pattern, you would have to inject a new repository instance IRepository<Cookbook> into your controller constructor (or using #Chris Hardie's answer, write code to attach yet another repository to the UoW instance). This would immediately make all of your other unit tests break, and you would have to go back to modify the construction code in all of them, passing yet another mock instance, and widening your dependency array. However with the above, all of your other unit tests will still at least compile. All you have to do is write additional test(s) to cover the new cookbook functionality.
I'm (not) sorry to say that the codefizzle, Dyksta's article and the previous answers are wrong. For the simple fact that they use the EF entities as domain (business) objects, which is a big WTF.
Update: For a less technical explanation (in plain words) read Repository Pattern for Dummies
In a nutshell, ANY repository interface should not be coupled to ANY persistence (ORM) detail. The repo interface deals ONLY with objects that makes sense for the rest of the app (domain, maybe UI as in presentation). A LOT of people (with MS leading the pack, with intent I suspect) make the mistake of believing that they can reuse their EF entities or that can be business object on top of them.
While it can happen, it's quite rare. In practice, you'll have a lot of domain objects 'designed' after database rules i.e bad modelling. The repository purpose is to decouple the rest of the app (mainly the business layer) from its persistence form.
How do you decouple it when your repo deals with EF entities (persistence detail) or its methods return IQueryable, a leaking abstraction with wrong semantics for this purpose (IQueryable allows you to build a query, thus implying that you need to know persistence details thus negating the repository's purpose and functionality)?
A domin object should never know about persistence, EF, joins etc. It shouldn't know what db engine you're using or if you're using one. Same with the rest of the app, if you want it to be decoupled from the persistence details.
The repository interface know only about what the higher layer know. This means, that a generic domain repository interface looks like this
public interface IStore<TDomainObject> //where TDomainObject != Ef (ORM) entity
{
void Save(TDomainObject entity);
TDomainObject Get(Guid id);
void Delete(Guid id);
}
The implementation will reside in the DAL and will use EF to work with the db. However the implementation looks like this
public class UsersRepository:IStore<User>
{
public UsersRepository(DbContext db) {}
public void Save(User entity)
{
//map entity to one or more ORM entities
//use EF to save it
}
//.. other methods implementation ...
}
You don't really have a concrete generic repository. The only usage of a concrete generic repository is when ANY domain object is stored in serialized form in a key-value like table. It isn't the case with an ORM.
What about querying?
public interface IQueryUsers
{
PagedResult<UserData> GetAll(int skip, int take);
//or
PagedResult<UserData> Get(CriteriaObject criteria,int skip, int take);
}
The UserData is the read/view model fit for the query context usage.
You can use directly EF for querying in a query handler if you don't mind that your DAL knows about view models and in that case you won't be needing any query repo.
Conclusion
Your business object shouldn't know about EF entities.
The repository will use an ORM, but it never exposes the ORM to the rest of the app, so the repo interface will use only domain objects or view models (or any other app context object that isn't a persistence detail)
You do not tell the repo how to do its work i.e NEVER use IQueryable with a repo interface
If you just want to use the db in a easier/cool way and you're dealing with a simple CRUD app where you don't need (be sure about it) to maintain separation of concerns then skip the repository all together, use directly EF for everything data. The app will be tightly coupled to EF but at least you'll cut the middle man and it will be on purpose not by mistake.
Note that using the repository in the wrong way, will invalidate its use and your app will still be tightly coupled to the persistence (ORM).
In case you believe the ORM is there to magically store your domain objects, it's not. The ORM purpose is to simulate an OOP storage on top of relational tables. It has everything to do with persistence and nothing to do with domain, so don't use the ORM outside persistence.
DbContext is indeed built with the Unit of Work pattern. It allows all of its entities to share the same context as we work with them. This implementation is internal to the DbContext.
However, it should be noted that if you instantiate two DbContext objects, neither of them will see the other's entities that they are each tracking. They are insulated from one another, which can be problematic.
When I build an MVC application, I want to ensure that during the course of the request, all my data access code works off of a single DbContext. To achieve that, I apply the Unit of Work as a pattern external to DbContext.
Here is my Unit of Work object from a barbecue recipe app I'm building:
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private BarbecurianContext _context = new BarbecurianContext();
private IRepository<Recipe> _recipeRepository;
private IRepository<Category> _categoryRepository;
private IRepository<Tag> _tagRepository;
public IRepository<Recipe> RecipeRepository
{
get
{
if (_recipeRepository == null)
{
_recipeRepository = new RecipeRepository(_context);
}
return _recipeRepository;
}
}
public void Save()
{
_context.SaveChanges();
}
**SNIP**
I attach all my repositories, which are all injected with the same DbContext, to my Unit of Work object. So long as any repositories are requested from the Unit of Work object, we can be assured that all our data access code will be managed with the same DbContext - awesome sauce!
If I were to use this in an MVC app, I would ensure the Unit of Work is used throughout the request by instantiating it in the controller, and using it throughout its actions:
public class RecipeController : Controller
{
private IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
private IRepository<Recipe> _recipeService;
private IRepository<Category> _categoryService;
private IRepository<Tag> _tagService;
//Using Dependency Injection
public RecipeController(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
_categoryRepository = _unitOfWork.CategoryRepository;
_recipeRepository = _unitOfWork.RecipeRepository;
_tagRepository = _unitOfWork.TagRepository;
}
Now in our action, we can be assured that all our data access code will use the same DbContext:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(CreateEditRecipeViewModel model)
{
Mapper.CreateMap<CreateEditRecipeViewModel, Recipe>().ForMember(r => r.IngredientAmounts, opt => opt.Ignore());
Recipe recipe = Mapper.Map<CreateEditRecipeViewModel, Recipe>(model);
_recipeRepository.Create(recipe);
foreach(Tag t in model.Tags){
_tagRepository.Create(tag); //I'm using the same DbContext as the recipe repo!
}
_unitOfWork.Save();
Searching around the internet I found this http://www.thereformedprogrammer.net/is-the-repository-pattern-useful-with-entity-framework/ it's a 2 part article about the usefulness of the repository pattern by Jon Smith.
The second part focuses on a solution. Hope it helps!
Repository with unit of work pattern implementation is a bad one to answer your question.
The DbContext of the entity framework is implemented by Microsoft according to the unit of work pattern. That means the context.SaveChanges is transactionally saving your changes in one go.
The DbSet is also an implementation of the Repository pattern. Do not build repositories that you can just do:
void Add(Customer c)
{
_context.Customers.Add(c);
}
Create a one-liner method for what you can do inside the service anyway ???
There is no benefit and nobody is changing EF ORM to another ORM nowadays...
You do not need that freedom...
Chris Hardie is argumenting that there could be instantiated multiple context objects but already doing this you do it wrong...
Just use an IOC tool you like and setup the MyContext per Http Request and your are fine.
Take ninject for example:
kernel.Bind<ITeststepService>().To<TeststepService>().InRequestScope().WithConstructorArgument("context", c => new ITMSContext());
The service running the business logic gets the context injected.
Just keep it simple stupid :-)
You should consider "command/query objects" as an alternative, you can find a bunch of interesting articles around this area, but here is a good one:
https://rob.conery.io/2014/03/03/repositories-and-unitofwork-are-not-a-good-idea/
When you need a transaction over multiple DB objects, use one command object per command to avoid the complexity of the UOW pattern.
A query object per query is likely unnecessary for most projects. Instead you might choose to start with a 'FooQueries' object
...by which I mean you can start with a Repository pattern for READS but name it as "Queries" to be explicit that it does not and should not do any inserts/updates.
Later, you might find splitting out individual query objects worthwhile if you want to add things like authorization and logging, you could feed a query object into a pipeline.
I always use UoW with EF code first. I find it more performant and easier tot manage your contexts, to prevent memory leaking and such. You can find an example of my workaround on my github: http://www.github.com/stefchri in the RADAR project.
If you have any questions about it feel free to ask them.
I am building an ASP.NET 4.0 MVC 2 app with a generic repository based on this blog post.
I'm not sure how to deal with the lifetime of ObjectContext -- here is a typical method from my repository class:
public T GetSingle<T>(Func<T, bool> predicate) where T : class
{
using (MyDbEntities dbEntities = new MyDbEntities())
{
return dbEntities.CreateObjectSet<T>().Single(predicate);
}
}
MyDbEntities is the ObjectContext generated by Entity Framework 4.
Is it ok to call .CreateObjectSet() and create/dispose MyDbEntities per every HTTP request? If not, how can I preserve this object?
If another method returns an IEnumerable<MyObject> using similar code, will this cause undefined behavior if I try to perform CRUD operations outside the scope of that method?
Yes, it is ok to create a new object context on each request (and in turn a call to CreateObjectSet). In fact, it's preferred. And like any object that implements IDisposable, you should be a good citizen and dispose it (which you're code above is doing). Some people use IoC to control the lifetime of their object context scoped to the http request but either way, it's short lived.
For the second part of your question, I think you're asking if another method performs a CRUD operation with a different instance of the data context (let me know if I'm misinterpreting). If that's the case, you'll need to attach it to the new data context that will perform the actual database update. This is a fine thing to do. Also, acceptable would be the use the Unit of Work pattern as well.
I'm a total newbie at Entity Framework and ASP.Net MVC, having learned mostly from tutorials, without having a deep understanding of either. (I do have experience on .Net 2.0, ADO.Net and WebForms)
My current doubt comes from the way I'm instancing my Entities objects.
Basically I'm doing this in my controllers:
public class PostsController : Controller {
private NorthWindEntities db = new NorthWindEntities();
public ActionResult Index() {
// Use the db object here, never explicitly Close/Dispose it
}
}
I'm doing it like this because I found it in some MSDN blog that seemed authoritative enough to me that I assumed this was a correct way.
However, I feel pretty un-easy about this. Although it saves me a lot of code, I'm used to doing:
using (NorthWindEntities db = new NorthWindEntities() {
}
In every single method that needs a connection, and if that method calls others that'll need it, it'll pass db as a parameter to them. This is how I did everything with my connection objects before Linq-to-SQL existed.
The other thing that makes me uneasy is that NorthWindEntities implements IDisposable, which by convention means I should be calling it's Dispose() method, and I'm not.
What do you think about this?
Is it correct to instance the Entities object as I'm doing? Should it take care of its connections by opening and closing them for each query?
Or should I be disposing it explicitly with a using() clause?
Thanks!
Controller itself implements IDisposable. So you can override Dispose and dispose of anything (like an object context) that you initialize when the controller is instantiated.
The controller only lives as long as a single request. So having a using inside an action and having one object context for the whole controller is exactly the same number of contexts: 1.
The big difference between these two methods is that the action will have completed before the view has rendered. So if you create your ObjectContext in a using statement inside the action, the ObjectContext will have been disposed before the view has rendered. So you better have read anything from the context that you need before the action completes. If the model you pass to the view is some lazy list like an IQueryable, you will have disposed the context before the view is rendered, causing an exception when the view tries to enumerate the IQueryable.
By contrast, if you initialize the ObjectContext when the Controller is initialized (or write lazy initialization code causing it to be initialized when the action is run) and dispose of the ObjectContext in the Controller.Dispose, then the context will still be around when the view is rendered. In this case, it is safe to pass an IQueryable to the view. The Controller will be disposed shortly after the view is rendered.
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it's probably a bad idea to have your Controller be aware of the Entity Framework at all. Look into using a separate assembly for your model and the repository pattern to have the controller talk to the model. A Google search will turn up quite a bit on this.
You are making a good point here. How long should the ObjectContext live? All patterns and practises books (like Dino Esposito's Microsoft-NET-Architecting-Applications) tell you that a DataContext must not live long, nor should it be cached.
I was just wondering why not having, in your case, a ControllerBase class (I'm not aware of the MVC implementation, so bear with me) where the ObjectContext gets initiated once for all controller. Especially think about the Identity Map Pattern, that's already implemented by Entity Framework. Even though you need to call another controller as your PostsController, it would still work with the same Context and improve performance as well.