Using Linq2SQL in the Visual Studio designer, I can define an association expressing a foreign-key relationship that isn't inferred from the database schema, and then use it in queries to merrily dot notate my way across relationships.
This is spectacularly handy with the sort of self-join typically used to express arbitrary hierarchies. These are often not declared relationships because the root is an orphan. Personally I solve the problem by making the root its own parent, which is just as easy to find in a query and allows me to declare the relationship, but most of the world doesn't seem to have thought of this and today I find myself dealing with such a case. I can't fix it because legacy code uses null parent to find the root.
So... I define the association in the Linq2SQL designer, which is fine as far as it goes. But I'd like to test my queries in Linqpad, and this leads to the question:
(How) can I define associations between inferred entities in Linqpad?
Note
When using this technique to deliver data through Web API:
Avoid both circular reference issues and redundancy by making the parent property Internal.
Be aware that you are retrieving the entire subtree from the requested node down.
If you don't want the entire subtree then don't use this technique.
This approach eliminates chatter and makes for a very responsive UX but should only be used where trees are never large.
Another more common approach is to respond to node expansion (in a tree) by fetching the immediate children of the node.
You can use your existing design by creating a new connection and selecting Use a typed data context from your own assembly.
Related
First a background. Our application is built on ASP.NET MVC3, .NET 4.0, and uses Linq-to-Sql (PLINQO) as its primary means of data access. Our web application is a multi-tenant/multi-client system where each client gets their own Sql Server database. Each Sql Server database up to now has had exactly the same schema.
Often times, clients will ask us to track custom fields in their Db that other clients don't track. The way we've handled this is by reserving a number of customfields in the db in our main tables. For example, our Widget table may have a CustomText1, CustomText2.. CustomText10, and a CustomDate1, CustomDate2..CustomDate10 fields. Again, all our schemas across clients are the same, so Linq-to-Sql handles these fields just as easily as any other field.
Now we are running into an issue where a client wants several hundred CustomBool fields, but doesn't need the others. So, basically, we are researching for ways to still use the Linq-to-Sql, but have it work against potentially different schemas depending on the database it is connected to (although they are different in a very specific way.)
Too much code has already been built on Linq-to-Sql and accessing the Widget classes generated by it that I'd like to not just fall back to straight SQL.
I've seen answers here and on the web on ways for Linq to Sql to access different tables that have the same schema, but I have not found a good answer to the same table name across different dbs with different columns.
Is this possible?
If the main objective is to store a few extra fields for existing domain objects then why not create a generic table that can store key value pairs. This is extremely flexible since there is no need to change your schema if a customer requires a new property.
We do this frequently and normally have some helpers to correctly cast the properties e.g.
Service.GetProperty<bool>("SomeCustomProperty")
If you are looking for a more "pluggable" domain model that can be completely different for each tenant, I think you will struggle if you are following a database driven approach and using the L2S designer to generate your code.
To achieve this you really need to be generating your database based on your code (domain driven design) which will give you much more flexibility i.e. you can load a tenant specific configuration (set of classes, business rules etc.) at runtime and use this to generate/validate your schema.
Update
It would be good if you could elaborate on exactly what design approach you have taken i.e. are you using the Linq designer and generating your model from the database?
It's clear that a generic key value pair store is not going to meet your querying requirements.
It's hard to provide a solution without suggesting a different technology. Relational SQL databases aren't really suited for dynamic domain models. You may be better off with a document database such as MongoDb or RavenDb where you are not tied to a specific schema. You could even make use of these just for your custom properties.
If that's not ideal then another solution would be to use something like Dapper to construct your queries. Assuming you are developing against interfaces you can have a implementation of your data service per tenant that makes use of their custom fields.
Ayende did a whole series of posts on Multitenancy and covers tenant specific domain models. It starts here and may be of some use to you.
I am currently reading Pro Asp.Net MVC, and they are building all of their linq2sql entity classes by hand, and mapping them with the linq mapping attributes. However, everyone else I see (from google searches) talking about linq 2 sql seem to be using the visual designer for building all of their entities. Which is the preferred way to build l2s entities, and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each?
The only difference I have noticed so far, is I can't seem to do inheritance mapping when using the visual designer, although MSDN says I should be able to so I might just be missing it in VS 2010's interface. However, I'm not so sure I should use inheritance anyway as that could technically add additional joins when I don't need the sub table data.
As a PS, l2s will not be doing any modification of my schema, I will be generating schema changes manually and then replicating them in linq2sql.
Thanks,
We used the designer all the time. It indeed introduces an added step, every time you make a change to the schema you need to import the table into the designer again, but I think that effrot pales in comparison to the amount of code you need to write if you bypass the desginer.
Also note that the designer creates partial classes, you can create an additional file for the partial class that includes additional implementation details. That way, when the table gets refereshed in the designer, it leaves you additional code alone. We do this to add a lot of helper functions to the classes, and also to provide strictly typed enumerated properties that overlay the primitive integer FK fields.
It's true that inheritance would be very difficult to accomplish well, but I think if you need that sort of data layer, L2S may not be the best solution. I prefer to keep my data layer clean and simple, just using L2S to get the data in and out, and then pu more complicated logic in the business layer. If we really needed to do things like object inheritance in our data layer, I would probably explore a more advanced and complicated technology like EF
We've built our entire application framework backend using L2S. I developed most of the this. I started to use the DBML designer but I quickly realized this was a royal pain. Every schema change required a change to the table(s) in the designers. Plus, the entities created by the designer all get stuffed in a single class file, and didn't have all the functionality I wanted, like support for M2M relationships, and more. So, it didn't take long before I realized I wanted a better way.
I ended up writing my own code generator that generates the L2S entities the way I want them, and it also generates a "lightweight" set of entities that are used in the application layer. These don't have any L2S plumbing. The code generator creates all these entities, and other code, directly from a target database. No more DBML!
This has worked very well for us and our entities are exactly the way we want them, and generated automatically each time our database schema changes.
I've looked at several similar questions but I didn't see any that directly applied to me, so forgive me if this is a duplicate.
For separation of concerns I'm trying to somehow map my business objects with logic to the LINQ to SQL data objects in the .dbml file (fairly new to this btw). What its looking like though is that my business objects are going to need to know about the corresponding LINQ2SQL objects. I read this article about trying to use POCOs with by using an xml mapping file, and it seems like that's similar to what I want, except that I don't have a one-to-one mapping from tables to classes because of a many-to-many relationship that I needed to create an extra table for.
I can encapsulate the data access in my business logic pretty well such that code that uses my business objects don't need to know anything about the database which is good, but it the business layer is still tightly coupled with the data access layer such that I couldn't swap out the DAL without either changing my business layer objects or creating new ones (that implement the same interfaces) for different data providers.
How can I decouple these layers?
Not sure if you are tied to LINQ to SQL somehow, but what you are trying to accomplish is pretty much the default in NHibernate. I recommend taking a look at NHibernate to see if it would be easier to switch than to fight LINQ to SQL.
I've found that fighting a tool is almost always a bad idea.
I have a Client/Server application, where the Client and Server have some common tables (which are kept in synchronisation as part of the application).
We currently store these tables (i.e. FileDetails) in a Shared.dbml file. Until now, any stored proc that returns a result of set of FileDetails, has been placed in the Shared.dbml (even it is a Server-only) SP.
I released that the LINQ to SQL supports a Base Class property on the DBML, and I thought that perhaps I could have a Server.dbml, that extends my Shared.dbml. In theory this would give me a ServerDataContext with all the shared tables and SPs, as well as the server-specific elements. Normally in the SQL designer I would drag and drop the SP, over the FileDetails table to show this is what was returned, however as the class is in a different DBML this is not possible, and in the XML I don't think the ElementType IdRef="1" approach will work (as the ref needs to point to another file)
I found I can get around that problem by editing the XMLs return type manually:
<Function Name="dbo.SELECT_FTS_FILES" Method="SELECT_FTS_FILES">
<Return Type="ISingleResult<DataTypes.FileDetails>" />
</Function>
My question is, does anyone have any experience with this kind of approach, and could point me to further resources? Are there any obvious drawbacks to it (other than than manual XML updates)
All feedback welcome
You could inherit from your datacontext. However in your new datacontext you wouldn't be able to use the linq designer you would have to code things out manually.
Is there any reason you don't want two datacontext?
Inheritance and LinqToSql don't play nice together in general. If you have a deep need for it you should look into another ORM like NHibernate.
First a bit about the environment:
We use a program called Clearview to manage service relationships with our customers, including call center and field service work. In order to better support clients and our field technicians we also developed a web site to provide access to the service records in Clearview and reporting. Over time our need to customize the behavior and add new features led to more and more things being tied to this website and it's database.
At this point we're dealing with things like a Company being defined partly in the Clearview database and partly in the website database. For good measure we're also starting to tie the scripting for our phone system into the same website, which will require talking to the phone system's own database as well.
All of this is set up and working... BUT we don't have a good data layer to work with it all. We moved to Linq to SQL and now have two DBMLs that we can use, along with some custom classes I wrote before I'd ever heard of Linq, along with some of the old style ADO datasets. So yeah, basically things are a mess.
What I want is a data layer that provides a single front end for our applications, and on the back end manages everything into the correct database.
I had heard something about Entity Framework allowing classes to be built from multiple sources, but it turns out there can only be one database. So the question is, how could I proceed with this?
I'm currently thinking of getting the Linq To SQL classes all set for each database, then manually writing Linq compatible front ends that tie those together. Seems like a lot of work, and given Linq's limitations (such as not being able to refresh) I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Could I do something with Entity Framework that would turn out better? Should I look into another tool? Am I crazy?
The Entity Framework does give a certain measure of database independence, insofar as you can build an entity model from one database, and then connect it to a different database by using a different entity connect string. However, as you say, it's still just one database, and, moreover, it's limited to databases which support the Entity Framework. Many do, but not all of them. You could use multiple entity models within a single application in order to combine multiple databases using the Entity Framework. There is some information on this on the ADO.NET team blog. However, the Entity Framework support for doing this is, at best, in an early stage.
My approach to this problem is to abstract my use of the Entity Framework behind the Repository pattern. The most immediate benefit of this, for me, is to make unit testing very simple; instead of trying to mock my Entity model, I simply substitute a mock repository which returns IQueryables. But the same pattern is also really good for combining multiple data sources, or data sources for which there is no Entity Framework provider, such as a non-data-services-aware Web service.
So I'm not going to say, "Don't use the Entity Framework." I like it, and use it, myself. In view of recent news from Microsoft, I believe it is a better choice than LINQ to SQL. But it will not, by itself, solve the problem you describe. Use the Repository pattern.
if you want to use tools like Linq2SQl or EF and don't want to have to manage multiple DBMLS (or whaetever its called in EF or other tools), you could create views in your website database, that reference back to the ClearView or Phone system's DB.
This allows you to decouple your web site from their database structure. I believe Linq2Sql and EF can use a view as the source for an Entity. If they can't look at nHibernate.
This will also let you have composite entities that are pulled from the various data sources. There are some limitations updating views in SQL Server; however, you can define your own Instead of trigger(s) on the view which can then do the actual insert update delete statements.
L2S works with views, perfectly, in my project. You only need to make a small trick:
1. Add a secondary DB table to the current DB as a view.
2. In Designer, add a primary key attribute to a id field on the view.
3. Only now, add an association to whatever other table you want in the original DB.
Now, you might see the view available for the navigation.