All geek questions in one place

Does ignorance remain constant in the structure of the ADO.NET entity, what do I think it means?

If the structure is unstable, can my unit tests build a version of the persistance storage file system under my entity model?

I will use the model of the first functions of the entity structure in the GUI, because it is too easy for my developers to make circuit changes and maintain the DAL level in synchronization.

Has anyone tried to use the first approach to the model and added ignorance of ignorance?

I think that would be my ideal world of modeling. I use LINQ2SQL atm, and it’s a little difficult to change the data store, but you have an automatically rich data layer that is not hidden behind the set of IDataContext business line interfaces.

If I can see some scenarios of this work, I would like to invest more time in the future to try this.

+3
source share
2 answers

Entity Framework does not have true ignorance. This is one of the biggest criticisms (i.e., Forced base class, many EF connections, etc.). LINQ-to-SQL may have a lack of knowledge of persistence, but in reality people tend to use a lazy approach to loading and attribute, which means that it still does not have constant ignoring.

We repeat that agnostic is (EF) anyway we need a provider. Of course, if you want to write an EF provider that talks to the file system, go ahead! However, there would be a lot of work. It would be easier to use a SQL Express database (flat file), etc.

+2

, Entity Framework 4.0, Persistence Notorance.

+3

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1699399/

More articles:


All Articles