We Keep Coding

Is Entity Framework capable of interacting with other databases with unknown table structures?

I have been using EF for my latest project and have enjoyed the ease of programming with it. Although it is slightly harder to setup and uses its own rules on connections, but once in place, treating your database the same as you classes and their methods adds a great layer of simplicity to it.
However, in my case I encountered occasions with which I am still not able to use EF. My program has a main database to work with. That is fine! But it also communicates with other databases on the same server. E.g. it reads data from an outside table that the user specifies inside the program. Those tables are of course not recognized by EF and they have different structures every time. To communicate with those tables I have to resort to normal Sql codes as before. So I feel a little bit between the two worlds.
I am just wondering if it is possible for foreign data to dynamically become part of the Entity Model or whether this foreign data can be accommodated in the framework?

As I know, it's impossible. Entity Framework is ORM, so it maps your Model (classe) to database. So if you don't know your Model you can't tell EF how to map it. You should use another approach to communicate with dynamic data.

Give LINQ-to-SQL (L2S) a try; I think you'll find, a lot of what you like about EF is the expressiveness of LINQ-to-Entities (L2E), and the LINQ syntax is the same.
I won't lie to you, though: there does always come a time using L2S where I wished my relations were first class properties on a POCO, but you can't have everything in this situation.

Entity Framework VS pure Ado.Net

EF is so widely used staff but I don't realize how I should use it. I met a lot of issues with EF on different projects with different approaches. So some questions brought together in my head. And answers leads me to use pure ado.net with stored procedures.
So the questions are:
How to deal with EF in n-tier application?
For example, we have some DAL with EF. I saw a lot of articles and projects that used repository, unit of work patterns as some kind of abstraction for EF. I think such approach kills most of benefits that increase development speed and leads to few things:
remapping of EF load results in some DTO that kills performance(call some select to get table data - first loop, second loop - map results to some composite type generated by ef, next - filter mapped data using linq and, at last, map it to some DTO). Exactly remapping to DTO is killer of one of the biggest efs benefit;
or
leads to strong cohesion between EF (and it's version) and app. It will be something like 2-tier app with dal and presentation with bll or dal with bll and presentation. I guess it's not best practice. And the same loading process as we have for previous thing except mapping, so again performance issue raised up. We could try to use EF as DAL without any abstraction under them. But we will get similar issues in some other way.
Should I use one context per app\thread\atomic operation? Using approach - one context per app\thread may slightly increase performance and possibilities to call navigation properties, but we meet another problem - updating this context and growing loaded data in context, also I'm not sure about concurrency with one dbcontext per app\thread. Using context per operation will lead us to remapping EF results to our DTO's. So you see that we again pushed back to question no.1.
Could we try to use EF + stored procedures only? Again we have issues from previous questions. What is the reason to use EF if the biggest part of functionality will not be used?
So, yes EF is great to start project. It so convenient when we have few screens and crud operations.
But what next?
All this text is just unsorted thoughts. I know that pure ado.net will lead to another kind of challenges.
So, what is your opinion about this topic?

By following the naming conventions , you will find it's called : ADO.NET Entity Framework , which means that Entity Framework sits on top of ADO.NET so it can't be faster , It may perform both in equal time , but let's look at EF provides :
You will no more get stuck with writing queries without any clue about if what you're writing is going to compile or not .
It makes you rely on C# or your favorite .NET language on writing your own data constraints that you wish to accept from the target user directly inside your model classes .
Finally : EF and LINQ give a lot of power in maintaining your applications later .
There are three different models with the Entity Framework : Model First , Database First and Code First get to know each of 'em .
-The Point about killing performance when remapping is on process , it's because that on the first run , EF loads metadata into memory and that takes time as it builds in-memory representation of model from edmx file.

ADO. Net is an object oriented framework that allows you to interact with database system (SQL, Oracle, etc).
Entity framework is a techniques of manipulating data in databases like (collection of queries (inert table name , select * from like this )).
it is uses with LINQ.

Entity Framework is not efficient in any case as in most tools or toolboxes designed to achieve 'faster' results.
Access to database should be viewed as a separate tier using store procedures as the interface. There is no reason for any application to have more than absolutely require CRUD operations. Less is more principle. Stored procedures are easy to write, secure, maintain and is de facto fastest way. It's easy to write tools to generate desired codes for POCO and DbContext through stored procedures.
Application well designed should have a limited numbers of connection strings to database and none of which should be the all mighty God. Using schema to support connection rights.
Lazy loading are false statements added to solve a problem that should never exist and introduced with ORM and its plug and play features. Data should only be read when needed. Developers should be responsible to implement this logic base on application context.
If your application logic has a problem to maintain states, no tool will help. It will in fact, make it worse by cover up the real problem until it's too late.
Database first is the only solution for a well designed application. Civilization realized long time ago the important of solid aqueduct and sewer system. High level code can and will be replaced anytime but data stays. Rewrite an entire application is matter of days if database is well designed.
Applications are just glorified database access. Still true in most cases.
This is my conclusion after many years in business applications debugging through codes produced by many different tools or toolboxes. The faster results advertised are not even close to cover the amount of time/energy wasted later trying to clean up the mess. Performance issues are rarely if not ever caused by high demand but the sum of all 'features' added through unusable tools.

ADO.NET provides consistent access to data sources such as SQL Server and XML, and to data sources exposed through OLE DB and ODBC. Data-sharing consumer applications can use ADO.NET to connect to these data sources and retrieve, handle, and update the data that they contain.
Entity Framework 6 (EF6) is a tried and tested object-relational mapper (O/RM) for .NET with many years of feature development and stabilization. An ORM like EF has the following advantage
ORM lets developers focus on the business logic of the application thereby facilitating huge reduction in code.
It eliminates the need for repetitive SQL code and provides many benefits to development speed.
Prevents writing manual SQL queries; & many more..
In an n-tier application,it depends on the amount of data your application is handling and your database is managing. According to my knowledge DTO's don't kill performance. They are data container for moving data between layers and are only used to pass data and does not contain any business logic. They are mostly used in service classes.See DTO.
One DBContext is always a best practice.
There is no such combination of EF + SP(Stored Procedure) as per my knowledge. If you wish to use an ORM like EF and an SP at the same time try micro-ORMs like Dapper,BLToolkit, etc..It was build for that purpose and is heck lotta fast than EF. Here is a good article on Dapper ORM.
Here is a related thread on a similar topic: What is the difference between an orm and ADO.net?

Strategies for replacing legacy data layer with Entity framework and POCO classes

We are using .net C# 4.0, VS 2010, EF 4.1 and legacy code in this project we are working on.
I'm working on a win form project where I have made a decision to start using entity framework 4.1 for accessing an ms sql db. The code base is quite old and we have an existing data layer that uses data adapters. These data adapters are used all over the place (in web apps and win form apps) My plan is to replace the old db access code with EF over time and get rid for the tight coupling between UI layers and data layer.
So my idea is to more or less combine EF with the legacy data access layer and slowly replace the legacy data layer with a more modern take on things using EF. So for now we need to use both EF and the legacy db access code.
What I have done so far is to add a project containing the edmx file and context. The edmx is generated using database first approach. I have also added another project that contains the POCO classes (by using ADO.NET POCO Entity Generator). I have more or less followed Julia Lerman's approach in her book "Programming Entity Framework" on how to split the model and the generated POCO classes. The database model has been set for years and it's not an option the change the table and the relationships, triggers, stored procedures, etc, so I'm basically stuck with the db model as it is.
I have read about the repository pattern and unit of work and I kind of like the patterns, but I struggle to implement them when I have both EF and the legacy db access code to deal with. Specially when I don't have the time to replace all of the legacy db access code with a pure EF implementation. In an perfect world I would start all over again with a fresh take one the data model, but that is not an option here.
Is the repository and unit of work patterns the way to go here? In order to use the POCO classes in my business layer, I sometimes need to use both EF and the legacy db code to populate my POCO classes. In another words, I can sometimes use EF to retrieve a part of the data I need and the use the old db access layer to retrieve the rest of the data and then map the data to my POCO classes. When I want to update some data I need to pick data from the POCO classes and use the legacy data access code to store the data in the database. So I need to map the data retrieved from the legacy data access layer to my POCO classes when I want to display the data in the UI and vice versa when I want to save data to the data base.
To complicate things we store some data in tables that we don't know the name of before runtime (Please don't ask me why:-) ). So in the old db access layer, we had to create sql statements on the fly where we inserted the table and column names based on information from other tables.
I also find that the relationships between the POCO classes are somewhat too data base centric. In another words, I feel that I need to have a more simplified domain model to work with. Perhaps I should create a domain model that fits the bill and then use the POCO classes as "DAO's" to populate the domain model classes?
How would you implement this using the Repository pattern and Unit of Work pattern? (if that is the way to go)

Alarm bells are ringing for me! We tried to do something similar a while ago (only with nHibernate not EF4). We had several problems running ADO.NET along side an ORM - database concurrency being a big one.
The database model has been set for
years and it's not an option the
change the table and the
relationships, triggers, stored
procedures, etc, so I'm basically
stuck with the db model as it is.
Yep. Same thing! The problem was that our stored procs contained a lot of business logic and weren't simple CRUD procs so keeping the ORM updated with the various updates performed by a stored procedure was not easy at all - Single Responsibility Principle - not a good one to break!
My plan is to replace the old db
access code with EF over time and get
rid for the tight coupling
between UI layers and data layer.
Maybe you could decouple without the need for an ORM - how about putting a service/facade layer infront of your UI layer to coordinate all interactions with the underlying domain and hide it from the UI.
If your database is 'king' and your app is highly data driven I think you will always be fighting an uphill battle implementing the patterns you mention.
Embrace ado.net for this project - use EF4 and DDD patterns on your next green field proj :)

EDMX + POCO class generator results in EFv4 code, not EFv4.1 code but you don't have to bother with these details. EFv4.1 offers just different API which does exactly the same (and it is only wrapper around EFv4 API).
Depending on the way how you use datasets you can reach some very hard problems. Datasets are representation of the change set pattern. They know what changes were done to data and they are able to store just these changes. EF entities know this only if they are attached to the context which loaded them from the database. Once you work with detached entities you must make a big effort to tell EF what has changed - especially when modifying relations (detached entities are common scenario in web applications and web services). For those purposes EF offers another template called Self-tracking entities but they have another problems and limitations (for example missing lazy loading, you cannot apply changes when entity with the same key is attached to the context, etc.).
EF also doesn't support several features used in datasets - for example unique keys and batch updates. It's fun that newer MS APIs usually solve some pains of previous APIs but in the same time provide much less features then previous APIs which introduces new pains.
Another problem can be with performance - EF is slower then direct data access with datasets and have higher memory consumption (and yes there are some memory leaks reported).
You can forget about using EF for accessing tables which you don't know at design time. EF doesn't allow any dynamic behavior. Table names and the type of database server are fixed in mapping. Another problems can be with the way how you use triggers - ORM tools don't like triggers and EF has limited features when working with database computed values (possibility to fill value in the database or in the application is disjunctive).
The way of filling POCOs from EF + Datasets sounds like this will not be possible when using only EF. EF has some allowed mapping patterns but possibilities to map several tables to single POCO class are extremely limited and constrained (if you want to have these tables editable). If you mean just loading one entity from EF and another entity from data adapter and just make reference between them you should be OK - in this scenario repository sounds like reasonable pattern because the purpose of the repository is exactly this: load or persist data. Unit of work can be also usable because you will most probably want to reuse single database connection between EF and data adapters to avoid distributed transaction during saving changes. UoW will be the place responsible for handling this connection.
EF mapping is related to database design - you can introduce some object oriented modifications but still EF is closely dependent on the database. If you want to use some advanced domain model you will probably need separate domain classes filled from EF and datasets. Again it will be responsibility of repository to hide these details.

From how much we have implemented, I have learned following things.
POCO and Self Tracking objects are difficult to deal with, as if you do not have easy understanding of what goes inside, there will be number of unexpected behavior which may have worked well in your previous project.
Changing pattern is not easy, so far we have been managing simple CRUD without unit of work and identity map pattern. Now lot of legacy code that we wrote in past does not consider these new patterns and the logic will not work correctly.
In our previous code, we were simply using transactions and single insert/update/delete statement that was directly sent to database assuming transactions on server side will take care of all operations.
In such conditions, we were directly dealing with IDs all the time, newly generated IDs were immediately available after single insert statement, however this is not case with EF.
In EF, we are not dealing with IDs, we are dealing with navigation properties, which is a huge change from earlier ADO.NET programming methods.
From our experience we found that only replacing EF with earlier data access code will result in chaos. But EF + RIA Services offer you a completely new solution where you will probably get everything you need and your UI will very easily bind to it. So if you are thinking about complete rewriting using UI + RIA Services + EF, then it is worth, because lot of dependency in query management reduces automatically. You will be focusing only on business logic, but this is a big decision and the amount of man hours required in complete rewriting or just replacing EF is almost same.
So we went UI + RIA Services + EF way, and we started replacing one one module. Mostly EF will easily co-exist with your existing infrastructure so there is no harm.

Save objects to a database?

So far in my .Net coding adventures I've only had a need to save information to files. So I've used XmlSerializer and DataContractSerializer to serialize attributed classes to XML files. My next project, however, requires that I save and retrieve information from a SQL server database. I'm wondering what my options are for doing this.
The current version of the app, which was not created by me, uses a lot of hard coded SQL commands. But now I'm trying to avoid doing anything where I have to read or write individual fields to or from the database or objects. I especially want to avoid a lot of hard coded SQL in my code. I like how the serializer classes just figure out how to read and write XML files based on the attributes and or public properties of the class. Is there something similar for a database rather then XML?

Object Relational Mapping
There are bunch of products out there, most notorious one being NHibernate, there are couple of competing products offered by Microsoft in Linq 2 Sql and Entity Framework (you're supposed to use the later, but everyone uses the first as is waaaay simpler).
You can see a nice (although I suspect biased) comparison of ORM offerings at http://ormbattle.net/

I believe you're referring to Object Relational Mappers. These provide a wealth of functionality, including simple object CRUD plumbing.
Check out:
NHibernate
Entity Framework
Linq to SQL
There are many others, but that'll get you going.

There is no generic object type when you deal with databases. Only tables and fields.
The combination of these could make an object though. Your best bet is to use stored procedures if you are concerned with hard coded SQL on the client code.
I'm also mainly referring to the actual field types in a database. ORM's are a different story. If you want look into nHibernate if you want an object relational mapper that can help with INSERTs, SELECTs, etc.

Depending on the project an ORM like NHibernate might be what you're looking for. Something where you map your database information to classes and the ORM takes care of the inserts, deletes, and selects for you without hand-written SQL. This also allows for migration to a different database system without a ton of rewrite.
I say it depends on the project because other things come into play here like performance and how the data is actually structured.

I think you should read up on Linq to SQL. This will allow you to work "primarily" with classes that are representations of your database tables and their relations.
DataContext context = new DataContext();
var obj = context.Table1.Single(row => row.Id == 1234);
obj.Name = "Test1234";
context.SubmitChanges();
This could be a good place to start to learn about Linq to SQL
Hope this is what you are looking for.

I agree with (and prefer) the previous suggestions to use an ORM. Just to make sure you have a full menu of options here is another option. If you're comfortable with the XML representation, (de)serialization, etc... you could also look into using SQLXML. With that said, you should not use this to avoid doing proper database design although this can be totally reasonable for some solutions.

How can I leverage an ORM for a database whose schema is unknown until runtime?

I am trying to leverage ORM given the following requirements:
1) Using .NET Framework (latest Framework is okay)
2) Must be able to use Sybase, Oracle, MSSQL interchangeably
3) The schema is mostly static, BUT there are dynamic parts.
I am somewhat familiar with SubSonic and NHibernate, but not deeply.
I get the nagging feeling that the ORM can do what I want, but I don't know how to leverage it at the moment.
SubSonic probably isn't optimal, since it doesn't currently support Sybase, and writing my own provider for it is beyond my resources and ability right now.
For #3 (above), there are a couple of metadata tables, which describe tables which the vendors can "staple on" to the existing database.
Let's call these MetaTables, and MetaFields.
There is a base static schema, which the ORM (NHibernate ATM) handles nicely.
However, a vendor can add a table to the database (physically) as long as they also add the data to the metadata tables to describe their structure.
What I'd really like is for me to be able to somehow "feed" the ORM with that metadata (in a way that it understands) and have it at that point allow me to manipulate the data.
My primary goal is to reduce the amount of generic SQL statement building I have to do on these dynamic tables.
I'd also like to avoid having to worry about the differences in SQL being sent to Sybase,Oracle, or MSSQL.
My primary problem is that I don't have a way to let ORM know about the dynamic tables until runtime, when I'll have access to the metadata
Edit: An example of the usage might be like the one outlined here:
IDataReader rdr=new Query("DynamicTable1").WHERE("ArbitraryId",2).ExecuteReader();
(However, it doesn't look like SubSonic will work, as there is no Sybase provider (see above)

Acording to this blog you can in fact use NHibernate with dynamic mapping. It takes a bit of tweaking though...

We did some of the using NHibernate, however we stopped the project since it didn't provide us with the ROI we wanted. We ended up writing our own ORM/SQL layer which worked very well (worked since I no longer work there, I'm guessing it still works).
Our system used a open source project to generate the SQL (don't remember the name any more) and we built all our queries in our own Xml based language (Query Markup Language - QML). We could then build an xmlDocument with selects, wheres, groups etc. and then send that to the SqlEngine that would turn it into a Sql statement and execute it. We discusse, but never implemented, a cache in all of this. That would've allowed us to cache the Qmls for frequently used queries.

I am a little confused as to how the orm would be used then at runtime? If the ORM would dynamically build something at runtime, how does the runtime code know what the orm did dynamically?
"have it at that point allow me to manipulate the data" - What is manipulating the data?
I may be missing something here and i aplogize if thats the case. (I only have really used bottom up approach with ORM)

IDataReader doesn't map anything to an object you know. So your example should be written using classic query builder.

Have you looked into using the ADO.NET Entity Framework?
MSDN: LINQ to Entities
It allows you to map database tables to an object model in such a manner that you can code without thinking about which database vendor is being used, and without worrying about minor variations made by a DBA to the actual tables. The mapping is kept in configuration files that can be modified when the db tables are modified without requiring a recompile.
Also, using LINQ to Entities, you can build queries in an OO manner, so you aren't writing actual SQL query strings.