LINQ will generate a set of classes from the SQL files. Should these be used directly, or should they be wrapped in another class so the model is not so dependent on the implementation?
You can do it either way. Generally I wrap the Linq to SQL classes in a repository, but if the app is small you can use the repository methods directly.
If the app is larger you can add a business layer.
If you actually need to abstract from your sql database's model, then Linq-To-Sql is probably the wrong choice. Sure, you can make it work (but that isn't what it was made for).
If you need that level of abstraction, you will want to move on to a more "enterprisey" ORM like Entity Framework. They require more configuration, which is used to specify the more intricate mappings that allow your object model and database model to not resemble each other,
On the other hand, if this is overkill then use Ling to Sql. It's simple and it's easy, as long as you can stick with its simplified approach to mappings.
I think it's fine to use the generated model classes directly in your business and presentation tiers - however, I would definitely encapsulate data access for those entities inside a repository pattern of some description (GetOne(), Save(), Search(), Delete() etc).
The main reason for doing so is to 'disconnect' query results before returning them to a calling layer, so that clients don't inadvertently execute queries directly against the database when they use LINQ on returned results. Eg, calling ToList() on an IQueryable<T> will return a local copy of the sequence that can be managed using plain LINQ to Objects.
It also promotes better separation of layers and less coupling, as clients will interact via interface methods on the repository, rather than use LINQ to SQL directly for data access, so if you do decide to chuck LINQ to SQL in favour of the Entity Framework (shudders), it's easier to do the refactoring.
The one exception I would make is when LINQ to SQL objects need to cross a service boundary, ie, sent as data transfer objects to or from a WCF service. In this case, I think it's a good idea to have a separate, light-weight object model that supports serialization - don't send your LINQ to SQL objects directly over the wire.
Related
I'm trying to design application that will have UI with database in the backend.
I will be using Linq-to-SQL as the database layer to update and insert.
Now I'm trying to find out the best practice to use in designing the project, suppose I have 2 tables in the DB (Customers, Orders)
Shall I depend on the generated Linq-to-SQL classes, or shall I still create classes for Customers, Orders?
Shall I wrap the generated Linq-to-SQL inside another class to add validations?
I hope my questions are clear.
L2S is in my opinion an excellent light-weight data access method. If you have control over the database and have limited application data processing logic it is often a good choice.
If you have a two-tier app with a UI communicating directly with the DB then you can depend on the L2S generated classes. If you have a multi tier app with a client communicating with e.g. a WCF service you probably need Data Transfer Objects.
Use the partial methods on the L2S classes for validation.
I think you should use other ORMs for better implementation DAL for example Entity Framework or Nhibernate this ORMs allow you Model First approach without attributes
and the validation logic you should separate in other classes for exmaple MyEntityValidator
And also good approach to use the Repository pattern this pattern allow doesn't depend on Data access EF or Nhibernate
and look at this Entity Framework and Repository
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'm building an application on top of a legacy database (which I cannot change). I'm using Linq to SQL for the data access, which means I have a (Linq to SQL) class for each table.
My domain model does not match with the database. For example, there are two tables named Users and Employees, and therefore I have two Linq to SQL classes named User and Employee. But in my domain model I'd like to have a User class which should contain some fields from either table (but I don't care about a lot of the other fields of these tables).
I'm not sure how I should design my repositories:
should the repositories perform the mapping between Linq to SQL classes (e.g. User, Employee) to the domain classes (User) and only return the domain classes to the application
or should my repositories return the Linq to SQL classes and leave the mapping to the caller
The first approach seems to make more sense to me, but is this the correct way to implement my repositories?
The purist (I try to stay pure) will tell you that your model represents your data. And therefore, anything that needs to be persisted is done so only when needed through repositories. Also, when you have complex entities, you want to use a service to combine them. For example, User + Employee = UserEmployee entity that is only accessible through an IUserEmployeeService.
With those vague statements, you have an excellent opportunity here.
Build an anti-corruption layer, which allows you to start moving off of the legacy DB at the same time.
This is an another chapter in the DDD playbook. An Anti-Corruption layer is used to interface with a legacy system using Facades, Translators, and Adapters to isolate the legacy DB with your pure Domain model.
Now, this may be a lot more work than you wanted. So, you have to ask yourself at this point:
Do I want to start the process of
moving off of this legacy DB, or will
it remain for the life of the
application?
If your answer is you can start migrating, then model your actual domain the way you want it. Persist it with normal repositories and services. Have fun designing it the way YOU want it stored. Then, use the services of the aggregate roots to reach into the anti-corruption layer and pull out the entities, store/update them locally, and translate into your domain's entities.
If the answer is that the legacy DB will remain for the life of the project, then your task is much easier. Use your domain's services (e.g. UserEmployeeService) to reach into the anti-corruption's UserFacade and EmployeeFacade (similar to a "Remote Service" concept).
Within the Facades, access the legacy db using the Adapters (e.g. LegacyDbSqlDatabase) to get a raw legacyUser(). The next step would be to use an UserTranslator() and EmployeeTranslator() mapper that converts the legacy user data into your actual domain's version of the User() entity, and return it from the UserFacade back to your UserEmployeeService, where it is combined with the Employee entity that came from the same place.
Whoa, that was a lot of typing...
With your Adapters and Facades of your Anti-Corruption layer, you can do your Linq-to-Sql or whatever you want to do. It doesn't matter because you have completely isolated the legacy DB/system away from your nice and pure Domain - your domain that has its own version of User() and Employee() entities and value objects.
DDD and Linq To SQL don't go together very well because the generated classes are not meant to deviate significantly from your DB table structure. You'll have to either map your classes in a way that makes working with Linq to SQL a pain or just live with a non-ideal object model.
If you really want to utilize DDD and the repository pattern go for Entity Framework or even better NHibernate.
In the NerdDinner example they use a repository pattern to decouple the business from the data layer. But then they use the Linq to SQL generated classes (Dinner specifically) as the entity class used throughout the project. So how decoupled is that really? It’s not like you could easily exchange Linq-to-SQL.
On my last project I created a separate entity class that I populated with left/right in the linq query because I found that even if you use a partial of the linq generated you cannot populate any additional fields that you add at query time.
LINQ to SQL is strongly tied to the database schema, which is why I wouldn't use it. I'd use Entity Framework instead, as it permits a mapping between the conceptual and logical models.
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.