We Keep Coding

In which class should wrapped EF entities be saved?

I have a WPF application which is written with an implementation of MVVM. There's no extra framework for the MVVM pattern.
My entities from EF db first are wrapped in their own viewmodels and I have a modelcontroller to load them into their viewmodels from a 'window' viewmodel.
Example of an entity viewmodel:
public class PurchaseOrderViewModel : ViewModels.ViewModelBase
{
private someType _prop;
public someType Prop
{
get
{
return _prop;
}
set
{
_prop = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
// ...
// Other Properties
// ...
public PurchaseOrderViewModel() {
// default constructor for LINQ
}
public PurchaseOrderViewModel(purchaseorder entity)
{
// load values from entity in properties
}
}
Example of a window viewmodel:
public class MainViewModel: ViewModels.ViewModelBase
{
private IModelController modelController = new ModelController();
private List<PurchaseOrderViewModel> _poList;
public List<PurchaseOrderViewModel> POList
{
get
{
return _poList;
}
set
{
_poList = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
// ...
// Other Properties
// ...
public MainViewModel()
{
POList = modelController.GetPurchaseOrders();
}
}
Example of ModelController:
public class ModelController : IModelController
{
public List<PurchaseOrderViewModel> GetPurchaseOrders()
{
using (var model = new DBContext())
{
return model.purchaseorders
.Select(new PurchaseOrderViewModel { /* assign properties */ })
.ToList();
}
}
}
Where am I supposed to save this wrapped viewmodel (PurchaseOrderViewModel) once the user is done editing it? As I see it, there are 2 options:
Create a save function in each viewmodel that points back to the modelController, but this feels like an inappropriate approach.
Create a save function in the modelcontroller and pass the viewmodel as an argument
It's most likely that I'm missing something in the MVVM pattern, but please point me in the right direction. Thank you!
EDIT: I excluded the view (MainView) from the info provided, but this view binds directly to the properties exposed by MainViewModel.

First up, I problably wouldn't name it ModelController as that's slightly confusing makes people think you are speaking MVC. Instead, if you call it xxxxService (e.g. PurchaseOrdersService) it makes more sense and it no longer feels "inappropriate" because having a VM delegate the actual work is what many users of IoC do. Plus it keeps your VM clean.
NOTE: By "service" I don't necessarily mean that your VM will be calling a WCF service directly (nor should you). Service is just a means to achieve something in an abstract and encapsulated way on behalf of clients. Examples include:
saving information to a DB
getting the current log mechanism
They can even be facades whereby they create a WCF client proxy and call a remote service on your behalf without you having to know the details.
So a typical flow is:
Command >> View code behind >> VM >> Service
The reason I include the view's code behind is that typically this is where you:
Catch exceptions
The starting point of async/await for asynchonous calls to your VM and service
Now when you pass context fromt the VM back to the service, there is no rule on what exactly you pass however I see no reason to pass VM to the service because that contains information the service doesn't care about.
Just pass the M which your VM should have bound to in the first place and continued to update via binding.

How to achieve read/write separation with Entity Framework

I have a database setup using 'master/slave replication'. I have one master and (at least) one slave, possibly ℕ slaves. For simplicity from here on I'll talk about one master, one slave because determining which slave to use includes some business-logic not relevant to the actual problem at hand.
Here's a schematic of the setup (with ℕ slaves):
In the application (currently using Dapper) I have the following, simplified, code:
abstract class BaseRepo
{
private readonly string _readconn;
private readonly string _writeconn;
public BaseRepo(string readConnection, string writeConnection)
{
_readconn = readConnection; //Actually IEnumerable<string> for ℕ slaves
_writeconn = writeConnection;
}
private SqlConnection GetOpenConnection(string cnstring)
{
var c = new SqlConnection(cnstring);
c.Open();
return c;
}
public SqlConnection GetOpenReadConnection()
{
return this.GetOpenConnection(_readconn);
// Actually we use some business-logic to determine *which* of the slaves to use
}
public SqlConnection GetOpenWriteConnection()
{
return this.GetOpenConnection(_writeconn);
}
}
class CustomerRepo : BaseRepo
{
// ...ctor left out for brevity...
// "Read" functions use the "read" connection
public IEnumerable<Customer> ListCustomers()
{
using (var c = this.GetOpenReadConnection())
{
return c.Query<Customer>("select * from customers order by name");
}
}
// "Write" functions use the "write" connection
public void UpdateCustomer(Customer cust)
{
using (var c = this.GetOpenWriteConnection())
{
c.Execute("update customers set name = #name where id = #id", cust);
}
}
}
My question is; suppose I want to use Entity Framework ("code first", should that be relevant) instead of Dapper; how would I best go about achieving the same concept; inserts/updates/deletes are executed against the "master" database and selects are executed against a slave (or any of the slaves). Does EF support this scenario at all? What would I need to do to make this work?
Additional info: I already use 'read-only' and 'write-only' users at the SQL Server level as a 'last line of defence' to prevent any mistakes in the DAL. What I'm looking for is a method of limiting my DAL to avoid having to catch SQL Server exceptions because of 'not allowed' actions and having to go to the (incorrect) SQL server in the first place before finding out the desired action is not allowed. I could use the same approach as I do now; instantiate/use the correct DbContext in the method itself (listcustomers/updatecustomer in the above example). I get that. But that would mean I'd have to create a 'wrapper' function for each "CRUD" action on each "entity" which was kind of why I was moving from dapper to EF in the first place; simply expose a DBSet and have EF take care of the changetracking/SQL queries etc. and now, hopefully, also figure out which connectionstring to use for each action.

As proposed by others, create a read/write context by default and then create a readonly one inheriting from it.
Also be sure to implement in a partial class a constructor accepting another configuration if you wish too.
public partial class CustomerEntities : DbContext
{
protected CustomerEntities(string nameOrConnectionString):base(nameOrConnectionString)
{
}
}
public class ReadonlyCustomerEntities : CustomerEntities
{
public ReadonlyCustomerEntities ()
: base("name=ReadonlyCustomerEntities")
{
}
public override int SaveChanges()
{
// Throw if they try to call this
throw new InvalidOperationException("This context is read-only.");
}
}

How to code/design the Model part in Caliburn.Micro?

I am new to MVVM pattern and Caliburn.Micro. I've read some tutorials on how to get started, but I'm confused about the Model part of MVVM in the context of Caliburn.
I want to create my first MVVM application and I have some design questions:
In tutorials, the Model was presented as simple property in
ViewModel. How should I manage more complex models? Is there any
naming convention? Obviously, there should be some external classes
made for my models, but how should I communicate between my models
and the view?
How should I keep references to many instances of one complex model?
For ex. cumtomers (instances of Customer model class)
Is there a possibility to manipulate one model class in many
ViewModels? How should I store my model reference, so it'll be
visible from different ViewModels?
Where should I put my code for more complex model manupulation/file,
database storage? How should I invoke such code? I'm not asking here
about SQLConnections, but MVVM best practices. :)
Thanks in advance for any help :)
EDIT:-------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your anwser. I uderstand the topic more clearly, but I'm still confused about some details.
For an example, let's assume this little application. I have a form that allows me to add a new Customer. It has a few fields like Name, Surname etc.
After pressing the button, I invoke the addCustomer command in the ViewModel. I want my program to store the newly created customer inside the database.
My view also has the List control (whatever), which displays my customers as raw strings (like "Name: John, Surname: Doe, Address: ..." I know it's dumb to make it like this, but i need an example of model manipulation (like .toString()))
For this example, I've created a bunch of stuff to illustrate my vision of that process:
fields - it's a set of form fields like Name, Surname etc.
customerSet - it's a set of Customer class to store all created
customers
.addToDatabase(fields) - a method which puts newly created customer
to the database
.getStrings - a method which prepares a set of strings to be
displayed by the list in CustomerView
I think about 2 approaches that would be good for a solution:
First approach. I don't like this one. The only advantage is, that
ViewModel handles all the logic inside application. Sharing model
would be a serious problem here, because saving methods are bound to
the ViewModel class.
Second, MVC like approach. To me it's the most intuitive one. But - I
don't know where should I store CustomersModel object, so few
ViewModels could have access to it.
Which is the better one? Or maybe another approach that is more suitable for MVVM?
Another problem is: Where should I put my method that will load all the Customers from the database, so they could be displayes on the list? In "get method" inside viewmodel, or inside a model class?

In tutorials, the Model was presented as simple property in ViewModel.
How should I manage more complex models? Is there any naming
convention? Obviously, there should be some external classes made for
my models, but how should I communicate between my models and the
view?
Your models should represent whatever it is they need to whether it's a customer, account, etc. The view models job is to handle the interaction between the view and models.
How should I keep references to many instances of one complex model?
For ex. cumtomers (instances of Customer model class)
Generally, you will map complex models to more friendly format for display, you can do it manually or use a tool like AutoMapper.
Is there a possibility to manipulate one model class in many
ViewModels? How should I store my model reference, so it'll be visible
from different ViewModels?
If you're working with a local db you can pass IDs around. If it's a service you could persist the model locally for other view models to work with. You could also inject a singleton, ISharedData, into view models that need to work with shared data.
Where should I put my code for more complex model manupulation/file,
database storage? How should I invoke such code? I'm not asking here
about SQLConnections, but MVVM best practices. :)
Create services for more complex model manipulation / business logic. Inject the services into view models that require them. ICustomerService, IAccountService, etc.
EDIT:-------------------------------------------------------
You're first approach is correct. To your point about sharing the model being a serious problem because saving methods are bound to the view model class. The view model will have a SaveCustomerCommand that is fired when the button is clicked, because of its binding.
The SaveCustomerCommand will persist the CustomerModel, regardless of how the CustomerModel is persisted. So if its a database, the view model might have a reference to a context and issue a _db.Save(CustomerModel). If another view model needs to manipulate a CustomerModel, it will do so by using the context. The view model could also have a reference to a CustomerService that handles the crud for the CustomerModel.
Here's how this might look:
public class AddCustomerViewModel : Screen
{
private readonly ICustomerService _customerService;
public AddCustomerViewModel(ICustomerService customerService)
{
_customerService = customerService;
}
//If button is named x:Name="SaveCustomer" CM will
//bind it by convention to this method
public void SaveCustomer(Customer customer)
{
_customerService.Save(customer);
}
}
public class CustomerListViewModel : Screen
{
private readonly ICustomerService _customerService;
private List<CustomerDisplayModel> _customers;
public CustomerListViewModel(ICustomerService customerService)
{
_customerService = customerService;
}
public List<CustomerDisplayModel> Customers
{
get { return _customers; }
set
{
_customers = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange();
}
}
//only fires once, unlike OnActivate()
protected override void OnInitialize()
{
var customers = _customerService.LoadAllCustomers();
//could just use the model but this shows how one might map from
//the domain model to a display model, AutoMapper could be used for this
Customers = customers.Select(c => new CustomerDisplayModel(c)).ToList();
}
}
public interface ICustomerService
{
List<Customer> LoadAllCustomers();
void Save(Customer customer);
}
//same as button, Label named x:Name="CustomerName" will bind
// to CustomerName
public class CustomerDisplayModel
{
private readonly Customer _customer;
public CustomerDisplayModel(Customer customer)
{
_customer = customer;
}
public string CustomerName
{
get { return _customer.Name; }
set { _customer.Name = value; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return _customer.Surname; }
set { _customer.Surname = value; }
}
public string Address
{
get { return _customer.Address; }
set { _customer.Address = value; }
}
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}

Where to put global rules validation in DDD

I'm new to DDD, and I'm trying to apply it in real life. There is no questions about such validation logic, as null check, empty strings check, etc - that goes directly to entity constructor/property. But where to put validation of some global rules like 'Unique user name'?
So, we have entity User
public class User : IAggregateRoot
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
// other data and behavior
}
And repository for users
public interface IUserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
User FindByName(string name);
}
Options are:
Inject repository to entity
Inject repository to factory
Create operation on domain service
???
And each option more detailed:
1 .Inject repository to entity
I can query repository in entities constructor/property. But I think that keeping reference to repository in entity is a bad smell.
public User(IUserRepository repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_repository.FindByName(value) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistsException();
_name = value;
}
}
Update: We can use DI to hide dependency between User and IUserRepository via Specification object.
2. Inject repository to factory
I can put this verification logic in UserFactory. But what if we want to change name of already existing user?
3. Create operation on domain service
I can create domain service for creating and editing users. But someone can directly edit name of user without calling that service...
public class AdministrationService
{
private IUserRepository _userRepository;
public AdministrationService(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
_userRepository = userRepository;
}
public void RenameUser(string oldName, string newName)
{
if (_userRepository.FindByName(newName) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistException();
User user = _userRepository.FindByName(oldName);
user.Name = newName;
_userRepository.Save(user);
}
}
4. ???
Where do you put global validation logic for entities?
Thanks!

Most of the times it is best to place these kind of rules in Specification objects.
You can place these Specifications in your domain packages, so anybody using your domain package has access to them. Using a specification, you can bundle your business rules with your entities, without creating difficult-to-read entities with undesired dependencies on services and repositories. If needed, you can inject dependencies on services or repositories into a specification.
Depending on the context, you can build different validators using the specification objects.
Main concern of entities should be keeping track of business state - that's enough of a responsibility and they shouldn't be concerned with validation.
Example
public class User
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Two specifications:
public class IdNotEmptySpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return !string.IsNullOrEmpty(subject.Id);
}
}
public class NameNotTakenSpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
// omitted code to set service; better use DI
private Service.IUserNameService UserNameService { get; set; }
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return UserNameService.NameIsAvailable(subject.Name);
}
}
And a validator:
public class UserPersistenceValidator : IValidator<User>
{
private readonly IList<ISpecification<User>> Rules =
new List<ISpecification<User>>
{
new IdNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotTakenSpecification()
// and more ... better use DI to fill this list
};
public bool IsValid(User entity)
{
return BrokenRules(entity).Count() == 0;
}
public IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(User entity)
{
return Rules.Where(rule => !rule.IsSatisfiedBy(entity))
.Select(rule => GetMessageForBrokenRule(rule));
}
// ...
}
For completeness, the interfaces:
public interface IValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T entity);
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(T entity);
}
public interface ISpecification<T>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(T subject);
}
Notes
I think Vijay Patel's earlier answer is in the right direction, but I feel it's a bit off. He suggests that the user entity depends on the specification, where I belief that this should be the other way around. This way, you can let the specification depend on services, repositories and context in general, without making your entity depend on them through a specification dependency.
References
A related question with a good answer with example: Validation in a Domain Driven Design.
Eric Evans describes the use of the specification pattern for validation, selection and object construction in chapter 9, pp 145.
This article on the specification pattern with an application in .Net might be of interest to you.

I would not recommend disallowing to change properties in entity, if it's a user input.
For example, if validation did not pass, you can still use the instance to display it in user interface with validation results, allowing user to correct the error.
Jimmy Nilsson in his "Applying Domain-Driven Design and Patterns" recommends to validate for a particular operation, not just for persisting. While an entity could be successfully persisted, the real validation occurs when an entity is about to change it's state, for example 'Ordered' state changes to 'Purchased'.
While creating, the instance must be valid-for-saving, which involves checking for uniqueness. It's different from valid-for-ordering, where not only uniqueness must be checked, but also, for example, creditability of a client, and availability at the store.
So, validation logic should not be invoked on a property assignments, it should be invoked upon aggregate level operations, whether they are persistent or not.

Edit: Judging from the other answers, the correct name for such a 'domain service' is specification. I've updated my answer to reflect this, including a more detailed code sample.
I'd go with option 3; create a domain service specification which encapsulates the actual logic that performs the validation. For example, the specification initially calls a repository, but you could replace it with a web service call at a later stage. Having all that logic behind an abstract specification will keep the overall design more flexible.
To prevent someone from editing the name without validating it, make the specification a required aspect of editing the name. You can achieve this by changing the API of your entity to something like this:
public class User
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetName(string name, ISpecification<User, string> specification)
{
// Insert basic null validation here.
if (!specification.IsSatisfiedBy(this, name))
{
// Throw some validation exception.
}
this.Name = name;
}
}
public interface ISpecification<TType, TValue>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(TType obj, TValue value);
}
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification<User, string>
{
private IUserRepository repository;
public UniqueUserNameSpecification(IUserRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User obj, string value)
{
if (value == obj.Name)
{
return true;
}
// Use this.repository for further validation of the name.
}
}
Your calling code would look something like this:
var userRepository = IoC.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
var specification = new UniqueUserNameSpecification(userRepository);
user.SetName("John", specification);
And of course, you can mock ISpecification in your unit tests for easier testing.

I’m not an expert on DDD but I have asked myself the same questions and this is what I came up with:
Validation logic should normally go into the constructor/factory and setters. This way you guarantee that you always have valid domain objects. But if the validation involves database queries that impact your performance, an efficient implementation requires a different design.
(1) Injecting Entities: Injecting entities can be technical difficult and also makes managing application performance very hard due to the fragmentation of you database logic. Seemingly simple operations can now have an unexpectedly performance impact. It also makes it impossible to optimize your domain object for operations on groups of the same kind of entities, you no longer can write a single group query, and instead you always have individual queries for each entity.
(2) Injecting repository: You should not put any business logic in repositories. Keep repositories simple and focused. They should act as if they were collections and only contain logic for adding, removing and finding objects (some even spinoff the find methods to other objects).
(3) Domain service This seems the most logical place to handle the validation that requires database querying. A good implementation would make the constructor/factory and setters involved package private, so that the entities can only be created / modified with the domain service.

I would use a Specification to encapsulate the rule. You can then call when the UserName property is updated (or from anywhere else that might need it):
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification
{
public bool IsSatisifiedBy(User user)
{
// Check if the username is unique here
}
}
public class User
{
string _Name;
UniqueUserNameSpecification _UniqueUserNameSpecification; // You decide how this is injected
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (_UniqueUserNameSpecification.IsSatisifiedBy(this))
{
_Name = value;
}
else
{
// Execute your custom warning here
}
}
}
}
It won't matter if another developer tries to modify User.Name directly, because the rule will always execute.
Find out more here

In my CQRS Framework, every Command Handler class also contains a ValidateCommand method, which then calls the appropriate business/validation logic in the Domain (mostly implemented as Entity methods or Entity static methods).
So the caller would do like so:
if (cmdService.ValidateCommand(myCommand) == ValidationResult.OK)
{
// Now we can assume there will be no business reason to reject
// the command
cmdService.ExecuteCommand(myCommand); // Async
}
Every specialized Command Handler contains the wrapper logic, for instance:
public ValidationResult ValidateCommand(MakeCustomerGold command)
{
var result = new ValidationResult();
if (Customer.CanMakeGold(command.CustomerId))
{
// "OK" logic here
} else {
// "Not OK" logic here
}
}
The ExecuteCommand method of the command handler will then call the ValidateCommand() again, so even if the client didn't bother, nothing will happen in the Domain that is not supposed to.

in short you have 4 options:
IsValid method: transition an entity to a state (potentially invalid) and ask it to validate itself.
Validation in application services.
TryExecute pattern.
Execute / CanExecute pattern.
read more here

Create a method, for example, called IsUserNameValid() and make that accessible from everywhere. I would put it in the user service myself. Doing this will not limit you when future changes arise. It keeps the validation code in one place (implementation), and other code that depends on it will not have to change if the validation changes You may find that you need to call this from multiple places later on, such as the ui for visual indication without having to resort to exception handling. The service layer for correct operations, and the repository (cache, db, etc.) layer to ensure that stored items are valid.

I like option 3. Simplest implementation could look so:
public interface IUser
{
string Name { get; }
bool IsNew { get; }
}
public class User : IUser
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public bool IsNew { get; private set; }
}
public class UserService : IUserService
{
public void ValidateUser(IUser user)
{
var repository = RepositoryFactory.GetUserRepository(); // use IoC if needed
if (user.IsNew && repository.UserExists(user.Name))
throw new ValidationException("Username already exists");
}
}

Create domain service
Or I can create domain service for
creating and editing users. But
someone can directly edit name of user
without calling that service...
If you properly designed your entities this should not be an issue.

Extending entity framework classes

Even many Q/A on the subject, I didn't find a clear answer for this question:
What's the best design practice for adding business rules (i.e, validations) to entity classes.
I simply want to check some validations before setting the underlying entity value:
public Property
{
get { return base.Property; }
set
{
// Do some validations or other business logic
base.Property = value;
}
}
It doesn't make sense to create a new class from scratch in BLL when all properties are already there in entity class. On the other hand, entity classes need to be extended with business logic rules.
Using interface need extra work, because a change in DAL (entity) would be reflected in both interface and BLL class.
I'm not sure if inheriting from entity class and overriding it's properties and adding extra properties and methods is a good idea or not.
A sample pseudo code in more helpful to me.
Thanks

I would like to elaborate on Stephen Cleary's answer. He is correct in using the partial class/methods to handle business rules in EF. However, he did not go into much detail about what to do within that partial class/method. I created a URL shortening service on my blog to use as an example for this. My ShortURL entity has only two columns/properties. Url and ID.
I wanted to validate that the URL being shortened is a valid URL before it actually stores it in the database through EF. So I created a partial class and method like so:
public partial class ShortURL
{
partial void OnUrlChanging(string url)
{
if (!Regex.IsMatch(url, #"(^((http|ftp|https):\/\/|www\.)[\w\-_]+(\.[\w\-_]+)+([\w\-\.,#?^=%&:/~\+#]*[\w\-\#?^=%&/~\+#])?)"))
throw new Exception("Not a valid URL.");
}
}
This stopped EF from changing the property, leaving it NULL. But that's all it did. It didn't give me an easy way to get at the error message and display it to the user (that I am aware of EDIT: According to http://www.sellsbrothers.com/posts/Details/12700 IDataErrorInfo is the only way to get the error message to display properly in ASP.NET MVC) so I followed another example I found in the dark recesses of the web somewhere and I made my partial class inherit from IDataErrorInfo. I then implemented the interface and included a private dictionary object to store error messages in.
public partial class ShortURL : IDataErrorInfo
{
private Dictionary<string, string> errors = new Dictionary<string, string>();
partial void OnUrlChanging(string url)
{
if (!Regex.IsMatch(url, #"(^((http|ftp|https):\/\/|www\.)[\w\-_]+(\.[\w\-_]+)+([\w\-\.,#?^=%&:/~\+#]*[\w\-\#?^=%&/~\+#])?)"))
errors.Add("Url", "Not a valid URL.");
}
public string Error
{
get { return string.Empty; } //I never use this so I just return empty.
}
public string this[string columnName]
{
get
{
if (errors.ContainsKey(columnName))
return errors[columnName];
return string.Empty; //Return empty if no error in dictionary.
}
}
}
Now, I have a fully-functioning way to store, retrieve, and display error messages. Now back in my controller (in MVC) I am able to do if (!ModelState.IsValid)
[HttpPost]
public ViewResult URLShortener(ShortURL shortURL)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View();
shortURL.Url = shortURL.Url.ToLower().StartsWith("www.") ? "http://" + shortURL.Url : shortURL.Url;
shortURLRepository.AddShortURL(shortURL);
object model = "http://www.u413.com/" + ShortCodes.LongToShortCode(shortURL.UrlID);
//Not related to this answer but I had to cast my string as a generic object because the View() method has a (string, string) constructor that does something totally different. My view actually uses string as the model. I know I know, I could have just used ViewBag.
return View("ShowUrl", model);
}
There ya go. A working example of how to not only extend EF's partial methods, but also how to propagate the validation back to the UI. Let me know if anything needs improving or if there was something I missed.

Check out your EF designer-generated code.
Each property Property is actually implemented like this:
public global::System.String Property
{
get
{
return _Property;
}
set
{
OnPropertyChanging(value);
ReportPropertyChanging("Property");
_Property = StructuralObject.SetValidValue(value, false);
ReportPropertyChanged("Property");
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
private global::System.String _Property;
partial void OnPropertyChanging(global::System.String value);
partial void OnPropertyChanged();
The partial method On-Property-Changing is where you can do single-property validation or business logic.

Xaqron, the best way I have found it to use Partial Classes, for example, if you have a class in your EF called PropertyListing you can use a partial class like this:
Partial Public Class PropertyListing
Inherits EntityObject
'Do something here
End Class
You can now extend the class as little or as much as you want without much fuss. The example is in VB but you get the jist of it