Skip to main content

Entity Framework - Hybrid Code First

Let's talk about an interesting subject related to Entity Framework (EF). When you are using EF there are different mechanism to map your model:
  • Code First - we write the code first and the DB is generated automatically based on the code
  • Database First - we define the DB structure and POCO entities are created automatically
  • Model First - we design the model in a 'nice' designer. This designer will generate the classes and the database model
All of them are perfect and works great. Based on our needs, preferences and team skills we can decide to go with an approach or another, but in the end we will end up with the same thing. I will follow up later on with a different post where I will compare them.

Now, let's talk about different scenarios that is used by people. I saw in a lot of implementation where people are afraid of Code First or Model First. Because of this I realize that most of them are using a hybrid solution that I called Hybrid Code First.

Why I called Hybrid Code First? 
Well, people don't trust EF to generate the database schema. Because of this they are defining the model in the code as classes (POCO). Once this is done, they are defining the database schema - tables, indexes, keys, the relationship between entities. 
Once this step is done, they are defining the mapping between their classes (POCO) and database schema using Fluent API. In this way they are connecting each C# entity model to each table, column or key.

Is this a good approach?
Well...there is no the right answer. This approach it is used because people don't trust EF enough. People don't trust that EF can generate a database schema good enough. Based on this fears they combine Code First with Database First using Fluent API. 
This way they have full control to database schema and also to the model (C# entities). 
Of course, because of this versioning needs to be made manually, but they don't trust out of the box versioning of Code First, even if with EF 4.1 version, it works pretty great.

This is another approach to define and manage the entities model. Even if it is more time consuming, it offers a safety nest for developing team. Offering them control for both part (DB and Code).  


  1. We are using exactly this model - and not because we don't trust EF to generate the database create/update scripts - it's because very often the DB schema can't be inferred only from the mappings.

    An example:
    - all C# classes are mapped to database views, that perform (custom) queries over the DB tables - how could EF by itself generate such a database? :)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to check in AngularJS if a service was register or not

There are cases when you need to check in a service or a controller was register in AngularJS.
For example a valid use case is when you have the same implementation running on multiple application. In this case, you may want to intercept the HTTP provider and add a custom step there. This step don’t needs to run on all the application, only in the one where the service exist and register.
A solution for this case would be to have a flag in the configuration that specify this. In the core you would have an IF that would check the value of this flag.
Another solution is to check if a specific service was register in AngularJS or not. If the service was register that you would execute your own logic.
To check if a service was register or not in AngularJS container you need to call the ‘has’ method of ‘inhector’. It will return TRUE if the service was register.
if ($injector.has('httpInterceptorService')) { $httpProvider.interceptors.push('httpInterceptorService&#…

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

Entity Framework (EF) TransactionScope vs Database.BeginTransaction

In today blog post we will talk a little about a new feature that is available on EF6+ related to Transactions.
Until now, when we had to use transaction we used ‘TransactionScope’. It works great and I would say that is something that is now in our blood.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection("...")) { conn.Open(); SqlCommand sqlCommand = new SqlCommand(); sqlCommand.Connection = conn; sqlCommand.CommandText = ... sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... } scope.Complete(); } Starting with EF6.0 we have a new way to work with transactions. The new approach is based on Database.BeginTransaction(), Database.Rollback(), Database.Commit(). Yes, no more TransactionScope.
In the followi…