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.

Map Objects to Database in Entity Framework

I've worked for some time with entity framework in a database first approach with all the fancy code generators from VS. But I have two problems with this :
1) As powerfull as it is, I am just sick of .edmx and generated code plus I want to keep the hand on my models objects. I don't want my models to be the exact reflect of my database, I just want them as I need them.
2) I no longer have access to code generation and .edmx, since I'm now working on VS Express 2013
The code first approach is not an option, since I work on an existing DB.
I have given a look to Massive and such, and I do love it, but it also reminded me how wonderful it is when many-to-many relationships are automatically managed...
So is it a way to "manually" wire objects to tables, like in Java's hibernate ?

"Update Model from Database" wizard is deleting mappings of renamed POCO classes

I'm building an application using EF 5 to talk to an existing Oracle database. I'm not allowed to change any part of the DB schema. I have generated my model from the database using the VS2012 wizard, and all classes are named after their Oracle counterparts.
The naming of objects in the database is QUITE_UGLY_AND_INCONSISTENT, so I'd like to rename the POCO classes and properties. I can easily do that from the EDM Designer. As a result, I get neatly named class and property names, that are mapped to the UGLY_NAMED tables from the DB. I can successfully perform queries and everything works smoothly. Exactly what I wanted.
However, when I need to add new tables to the model, I run the "Update Model from Database" wizard and check the additional tables to import. It suddenly lists my renamed (but still correctly mapped) classes under the Delete tab, saying it can't find them in the database. When I click Finish, my existing classes are unmapped and I have to manually re-map each property to its corresponding DB column... Or roll back to the previous version of the EDMX file from version control.
I'm looking for what you think would be the most elegant solution to this problem, since I need the application to be as maintainable as possible. I strongly favour an approach that lets me auto-generate new classes from the database while preserving the existing renamed objects and their mappings.
Am I overlooking some way to prevent the Update Model wizard from deleting my existing mappings?
Should I use a different approach to renaming the generated classes?
Should I leave the generated classes unchanged and instead construct sanely-named wrapper classes that are exposed to the rest of my application?
Should I refrain from auto-generation and instead go for a code-first approach? This is a very unfavorable option, because I need the time spent on manual model coding and mapping to be as little as possible. Adding objects will be a very frequent task.
Should I perhaps even use a different ORM altogether..?

I discovered the culprit myself: running the "Generate Database from Model" wizard due to a recommendation in an article I read somewhere. It changed all the model's underlying table and column names to SQL Server standard names ([dbo].[Customers].[CustomerID] etc.).

Data Access Framework that addresses my needs

I'm having trouble choosing an appropriate data access framework, partly because I'm very picky with my preferences and mostly because I don't have much experience with most of them :-)
I need a framework that will allow me to easily map between the DB tables (SQL Server) and my entities, and that will handle the CRUD operations for me (for the most part).
I want my entities to reside in a separate assembly from my DAL.
I prefer using attributes for the mappings over external file like XML.
It doesn't have to be an ORM, and I want to code my entities myself.
I don't mind writing stored procedures.
The project's database won't be very big. Less than 50 tables.
I'd like some of my entities to correspond to an inner join of two tables - one for static data entered manually during development and the other with data filled during runtime - without using two entities that reference one another (the result of this join will be a single entity).
Entity Framework sounded perfect until I realized it doesn't support Enums (yet - and I can't wait for EF 5.0).
I want these entities to include Enums, and plan on using lookup tables for the enums + code generation for the enum to keep it synchronized with the database.
Linq-to-SQL seems like a good candidate, but I don't know if it copes well with my previous demands.
Using Enterprise Library 5.0 DAAB with it's RowMapper, and extending it's abilities to perform updates and inserts is also an option (but will require more coding on my part).
I plan on implementing the Repository Pattern.
How about NHibernate? Would it do? No experience there either.
I would be happy to hear all suggestions.. the more the merrier! Thanks in advance!

I think nHibernate is the way to go, although some of its main strengths (ORM, stored procedure generation, etc) are things you listed as non-requirements. Anyway, nHibernate will do everything you want it to do. Technically it does use xml mappings, but these can easily be auto-generated using fluent attribute mapping. I like this, as it IS done for you, but you get the customization too just in case you need it. Good luck!

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.