Following the way Rob does it, I have the classes that are generated by the Linq to SQL wizard, and then a copy of those classes that are POCOs. In my repositories I return these POCOs rather than the Linq to SQL models:
return from c in DataContext.Customer
where c.ID == id
select new MyPocoModels.Customer { ID = c.ID, Name = c.Name }
I understand that the benefit of this is that the POCO models can be instantiated easier so this will make my code more testable.
I'm now moving from Linq to SQL over to Entity Framework and I'm about half way through an EF book. It seems there's a lot of goodness I'm going to lose out on by returning POCOs from my repositories rather than the EF entities.
I still haven't really embraced unit testing, so I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time creating these extra POCOs and writing the code to populate them, when all I appear to be gaining is testable code, yet I'm also gonna lose out on a lot of the benefits of the EF by not being able to track my objects.
Does anyone have any advice for a relative newb to all this ORM/Repository stuff?
Anthony
Another reason people don't like the auto-generated objects (in LINQ to SQL for example) is because of their built-in "magic".
Usually the magic is invisible and you never notice it, but when you try to do things like serialize one of those objects and then deserialize it (for example when using web services) its internal connection to the data source is broken and special hacks need to be employed to "put the magic back in".
With POCOs, you don't have to worry about those sorts of things and can get a better separation between your data and service layers. The downside of course is that you have to write lots of boring POCO -> magic object and magic object -> POCO conversion code. But in the end I think it's usually worth it, especially for large or complex projects.
The main reason is that a lot of people like to develop their model with a specific mindset: like DDD for instance. They might want to use a specific pattern (like Spec or State) for things like statuses (instead of enums) - or you might want to use a Factory for instantiation.
OO breaks when you try to use Tables as Objects when things get more complex. Simple sites work OK - but when you get to big big things, it gets ugly.
So - as always - it depends what you think your project will turn into.
My experience is that when you start writting some complex queries .Include method is worthless and you will find yourself either:
a) Writting a lot of queries to get the data you want or
b) abusing of annonymous types to load the data in a single query and then writting a lot of code just to pass that data to your entities.
POCOs are the way to go, IMHO.
Related
So, I'm working on new software, but I have no choice but to brownfield the database. I would like to use Entity Framework where it makes sense.
Here's my dilemma:
Since the tables are very wide, and I can't change this, I will probably make heavy use of projection to limit the width of the datasets that I query.
I do want to make use of navigation properties where it makes sense
From what I've seen, a lot of people use a model where there is a single DbContext class for the whole project.
So,
I'm weighing these pro's and cons, and I'm wondering what the established best practices might be:
Use 1 DbContext.
There could be A LOT of "pollution" here, with bunches of projections of the data inside of the 1 context class. This sounds like it could become a maintenance nightmare.
Don't make my projections dbsets at all -- just make them plain old objects and select new MyProject {..} into them.
This offers the benefit of keeping my projections in module-specific assemblies and namespaces, but now I get NO navigation/lazy loading/ etc.
Be evil?? and use multiple DbContexts?
I'm not really sure what the maintenance story looks like here, but I'm kind of starting to lean in this direction. My biggest problem with it is that it feels like I'm swimming against the current -- not many people seem to do this, but for a large system, it seems like it could be the best option.
Thoughts?
I think you must use POCO or DTO for data transfer between different layers of application. Use ViewModel to send data to View.
Consider using Repository Pattern and UoW to have a better and efficient architecture in this scenario. Limit the use of navigation properties till repository otherwise they makes entity heavy while transferring those across layers (Use POCO or DTO).
If you are doing as above, then I do not think using multiple DbContexts would give you any benefit. Thanks.
I have written a wrapper around ADO.NET's DbProviderFactory that I use extensively throughout my applications. I also have written a lot of code that maps IDataReader rows to POCOs. However, as I have tons of classes the whole thing is getting to be a pain in the ass to maintain.
I have been looking at replacing the whole she-bang with a micro-orm like Petapoco. I have a few queries though:
I have lots of POCOs that contain other POCOs in them as properties. How well does the Petapoco support this?
Should I use a ORM like Massive or Simple.Data that returns a dynamic object and map that to a POCO?
Are there any approaches I can take to the whole mapping of rows to POCOs? I can't really use convention-based tools as my database isn't particularly consistent in how it is designed.
How about using a text templating/code generator to build out a lightweight persistence layer? I have a battle-hardened open source project called TextMetal to generate the necessary persistence layer based on tried and true architectural decisions. The only lacking thing is object to object relations but it does support query expressions and works well with poorly designed data schemas.
You can see a real world project that uses the above tool call Can Do It For.
Feel free to ask me about any design decisions once you take a look-sse.
Simple.Data automagically casts its dynamic type to static types. It will map nested properties as long as they have been eager-loaded using the .With method. So for example
Customer customer = db.Customer.WithOrders().Get(42);
would populate the Orders property of the customer object.
Could you use QueryFirst, or modify it? It takes your sql and wraps it in vanilla ADO code, generated at design time. You get fresh POCOs from your result schema every time you save your file. Additionally, you can choose to test all queries and regenerate all wrappers via the option in the tools menu. It's dependent on Sql Server and SqlClient, so unless you do some modification, you'll lose DbProviderFactory.
So it turns out that I am the last person to discover the fundamental floor that exists in Microsoft's Entity Framework when implementing TPT (Table Per Type) inheritance.
Having built a prototype with 3 sub classes, the base table/class consisting of 20+ columns and the child tables consisting of ~10 columns, everything worked beautifully and I continued to work on the rest of the application having proved the concept. Now the time has come to add the other 20 sub types and OMG, I've just started looking the SQL being generated on a simple select, even though I'm only interested in accessing the fields on the base class.
This page has a wonderful description of the problem.
Has anyone gone into production using TPT and EF, are there any workarounds that will mean that I won't have to:
a) Convert the schema to TPH (which goes against everything I try to achieve with my DB design - urrrgghh!)?
b) rewrite with another ORM?
The way I see it, I should be able to add a reference to a Stored Procedure from within EF (probably using EFExtensions) that has the the TSQL that selects only the fields I need, even using the code generated by EF for the monster UNION/JOIN inside the SP would prevent the SQL being generated every time a call is made - not something I would intend to do, but you get the idea.
The killer I've found, is that when I'm selecting a list of entities linked to the base table (but the entity I'm selecting is not a subclass table), and I want to filter by the pk of the Base table, and I do .Include("BaseClassTableName") to allow me to filter using x=>x.BaseClass.PK == 1 and access other properties, it performs the mother SQL generation here too.
I can't use EF4 as I'm limited to the .net 2.0 runtimes with 3.5 SP1 installed.
Has anyone got any experience of getting out of this mess?
This seems a bit confused. You're talking about TPH, but when you say:
The way I see it, I should be able to add a reference to a Stored Procedure from within EF (probably using EFExtensions) that has the the TSQL that selects only the fields I need, even using the code generated by EF for the monster UNION/JOIN inside the SP would prevent the SQL being generated every time a call is made - not something I would intend to do, but you get the idea.
Well, that's Table per Concrete Class mapping (using a proc rather than a table, but still, the mapping is TPC...). The EF supports TPC, but the designer doesn't. You can do it in code-first if you get the CTP.
Your preferred solution of using a proc will cause performance problems if you restrict queries, like this:
var q = from c in Context.SomeChild
where c.SomeAssociation.Foo == foo
select c;
The DB optimizer can't see through the proc implementation, so you get a full scan of the results.
So before you tell yourself that this will fix your results, double-check that assumption.
Note that you can always specify custom SQL for any mapping strategy with ObjectContext.ExecuteStoreQuery.
However, before you do any of this, consider that, as RPM1984 points out, your design seems to overuse inheritance. I like this quote from NHibernate in Action
[A]sk yourself whether it might be better to remodel inheritance as delegation in the object model. Complex inheritance is often best avoided for all sorts of reasons unrelated to persistence or ORM. [Your ORM] acts as a buffer between the object and relational models, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore persistence concerns when designing your object model.
We've hit this same problem and are considering porting our DAL from EF4 to LLBLGen because of this.
In the meantime, we've used compiled queries to alleviate some of the pain:
Compiled Queries (LINQ to Entities)
This strategy doesn't prevent the mammoth queries, but the time it takes to generate the query (which can be huge) is only done once.
You'll can use compiled queries with Includes() as such:
static readonly Func<AdventureWorksEntities, int, Subcomponent> subcomponentWithDetailsCompiledQuery = CompiledQuery.Compile<AdventureWorksEntities, int, Subcomponent>(
(ctx, id) => ctx.Subcomponents
.Include("SubcomponentType")
.Include("A.B.C.D")
.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Id == id));
public Subcomponent GetSubcomponentWithDetails(int id)
{
return subcomponentWithDetailsCompiledQuery.Invoke(ObjectContext, id);
}
I’m currently working on a prototype of a medium size web application, and I thought that it would be good to also experiment with Entity Framework. The problem is that the major part of the application is not the data layer and logic, and so that I don't have much time to play with Entity Framework. On the other hand, the database schema is quite simple.
One of the problems I’m facing is that I cannot find a consistent way to "write queries". As far as I can tell, there are four "interfaces" for the job:
LINQ to Entities
LINQ to Entities using LINQ extension methods
Entity SQL
Query builder
OK, the first two are essentially the same, but it’s good to use just one for maintenance and consistency.
I’m mostly puzzled by the fact that none of them seems to be complete and the most general. I often find myself cornered and using some ugly looking combination of several of them. My guess is that Entity SQL is the most general one, but writing queries using strings feels like a step back. The main reason I’m experimenting with something like Entity Framework is that I like the compile time checking.
Some other random thought / issues:
I often also use the ObjectQuery.Include() method, but again it takes a string. Is this the only way?
When to use ObjectQuery.Execute() (vs. ToList())? Does it actually execute the query?
Should execute queries as soon as possible (e.g. using ToList()) or should I not care just let leave the execution for the first enumeration which gets in the way?
Are ObjectQuery.Skip() and ObjectQuery.Take() available only as extension methods? Is there a better way to do paging? It’s 2009 and almost every web application deals with paging.
Overall, I understand there are many difficulties when implementing an ORM, and often one has to compromise. On the other hand, the direct database access (e.g. ADO.NET) is plain and simple and has well defined interface (tabular results, data readers), so all code - no matter who and when writes it - is consistent. I don’t want to faced with too many choices whenever writing a database query. It’s too tedious and more than likely different developers will come up with different ways.
What are your rules of thumbs?
I use LINQ-to-Entities as much as possible. I also try and formalise to the lambda-form, as opposed to the extended SQL-style syntax. I have to admit to have had problems enforcing relationships and making compromises on efficiency just to expedite my coding of our application (eg. Master->Child tables may need to be manually loaded) but all in all, EF is a good product.
I do use EF's .Include() method for lazy-loading, which as you say, does require a string input. I find no problem with this, other than that of identifying the string to use which is relatively simple. I guess if you're keen on compile-time checking of such relations, a model similar to: Parent.GetChildren() might be more appropriate.
My application does require some "dynamic" queries to be performed, though. I have two ways of meeting this:
a) I create a mediator object, eg. ClientSearchMediator, which "knows" how to search for clients by name, etc. I can then put this through a SearchHandler.Search(ISearchMediator[] mediators) call (for example). This can be used to target specific data structures and sort results accordingly using LINQ-to-Entities.
b) For a looser experience, possibly as a result of a user designing their own query (using high level tools our application provides), eSQL is ideal for this purpose. It can be made to be injection-safe.
I don't have enough knowledge to address all of this, but I'll at least take a few stabs.
I don't know why you think ADO.NET is more consistent than Entity Framework. There are many different ways to use ADO.NET and I've definitely seen inconsistency within a single code base.
Entity Framework is currently a 1.0 release and it suffers from many 1.0 type problems (incomplete & inconsistent API, missing features, etc.).
In regards to Include, I assume you are referring to eager loading. Multiple people (outside of Microsoft) have developed solutions for getting "type safe" includes (try googling something like: Entity Framework ObjectQueryExtension Include). That said, Include is more of a hint than anything. You can't force eager loading and you have to always remember to call the IsLoaded() method to see if your request was fulfilled. As far as I know, the way "Include" works is not changing at all in the next version of Entity Framework (4.0 - to ship with VS 2010).
As far as executing the Linq query as soon as it's built vs. the last possible moment, that decision is situational. Personally, I would probably execute it as soon as it's built for the most part unless there was a compelling reason not to, but I can see other people going the opposite direction.
There are more mature ORMs on the market and Entity Framework isn't necessarily your best option. For the most part, you can bend Entity Framework to your will, but you may end up rolling your own implementation of features that come out of the box with other ORMs.
I'm starting a new project and have decided to try to incorporate DDD patterns and also include Linq to Entities. When I look at the EF's ObjectContext it seems to be performing the functions of both Repository and Unit of Work patterns:
Repository in the sense that the underlying data level interface is abstracted from the entity representation and I can request and save data through the ObjectContext.
Unit Of Work in the sense that I can write all my inserts/updates to the objectContext and execute them all in one shot when I do a SaveChanges().
It seems redundant to put another layer of these patterns on top of the EF ObjectContext? It also seems that the Model classes can be incorporated directly on top of the EF generated entities using 'partial class'.
I'm new at DDD so please let me know if I'm missing something here.
I don't think that the Entity Framework is a good implementation of Repository, because:
The object context is insufficiently abstract to do good unit testing of things which reference it, since it is bound to the DB access. Having an IRepository reference instead works much better for creating unit tests.
When a client has access to the ObjectContext, the client can do pretty much anything it cares to. The only real control you have over this at all is to make certain types or properties private. It is hard to implement good data security this way.
On a non-trivial model, the ObjectContext is insufficiently abstract. You may, for example, have both tables and stored procedures mapped to the same entity type. You don't really want the client to have to distinguish between the two mappings.
On a related note, it is difficult to write comprehensive and well-enforce business rules and entity code. Indeed, whether or not it this is even a good idea is debatable.
On the other hand, once you have an ObjectContext, implementing the Repository pattern is trivial. Indeed, for cases that are not particularly complex, the Repository is something of a wrapper around the ObjectContext and the Entity types.
I would say that you should look at the ObjectContext as your UnitOfWork, and not as a repository.
An ObjectContext cannot be a repository -imho- since it is 'to generic'.
You should create your own Repositories, which have specialized methods (like GetCustomersWithGoldStatus for instance) next to the regular CRUD methods.
So, what I would do, is create repositories (one for each aggregate-root), and let those repositories use the ObjectContext.
I like to have a repository layer for the following reasons:
EF gotcha's
When you look at some of the current tutorials on EF (Code First version), it is apparent there's a number of gotcha's to be handled, particularly around object graphs (entities containing entities) and disconnected scenarios. I think a repository layer is great for wrapping these up in one place.
A clear picture of data access mechanisms
A repository gives a specific picture as to how the BL is accessing and updating the data store. It exposes methods that have a clear single purpose, and can be tested independently of the BL. Standard example from the textbooks, Find() to find a single entity. A more application specific example, Clear() to clear down a db table.
A place for optimizations
Inevitably you come up against performance hits when using vanilla EF. I use the repository to hide the optimization mechanisms from the BL.
Examples,
GetKeys() to project cached keys from the tables (for Insert/Update decisions). The reading of key only is faster and uses less memory than reading the full entity.
Bulk load via SqlBulkCopy. EF will insert by individual SQL statements. If you want a single statement to insert multiple rows, SqlBulkCopy is a good mechanism. The repository encapsulates this and provides metadata for SqlBulkCopy. As well as the Insert method, you need a StartBatch() and EndBatch() method, which is also an argument for a UnitOfWork layer.