Skip to main content

Entity Framework - Hybrid Code First

By
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).  
Labels:

Comments

  1. tudor_turcuJune 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM

    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? :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Database Modernization Matters for AI

By
  When companies transition to the cloud, they typically begin with applications and virtual machines, which is often the easier part of the process. The actual complexity arises later when databases are moved. To save time and effort, cloud adoption is more of a cloud migration in an IaaS manner, fulfilling current, but not future needs. Even organisations that are already in the cloud find that their databases, although “migrated,” are not genuinely modernised. This disparity becomes particularly evident when they begin to explore AI technologies. Understanding Modernisation Beyond Migration Database modernisation is distinct from merely relocating an outdated database to Azure. It's about making your data layer ready for future needs, like automation, real-time analytics, and AI capabilities. AI needs high throughput, which can be achieved using native DB cloud capabilities. When your database runs in a traditional setup (even hosted in the cloud), in that case, you will enc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Cloud Myths: Migrating to the cloud is quick and easy (Pill 2 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

By
The idea that migration to the cloud is simple, straightforward and rapid is a wrong assumption. It’s a common misconception of business stakeholders that generates delays, budget overruns and technical dept. A migration requires laborious planning, technical expertise and a rigorous process.  Migrations, especially cloud migrations, are not one-size-fits-all journeys. One of the most critical steps is under evaluation, under budget and under consideration. The evaluation phase, where existing infrastructure, applications, database, network and the end-to-end estate are evaluated and mapped to a cloud strategy, is crucial to ensure the success of cloud migration. Additional factors such as security, compliance, and system dependencies increase the complexity of cloud migration.  A misconception regarding lift-and-shits is that they are fast and cheap. Moving applications to the cloud without changes does not provide the capability to optimise costs and performance, leading to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

By
Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills) The idea that moving to the cloud reduces the costs is a common misconception. The cloud infrastructure provides flexibility, scalability, and better CAPEX, but it does not guarantee lower costs without proper optimisation and management of the cloud services and infrastructure. Idle and unused resources, overprovisioning, oversize databases, and unnecessary data transfer can increase running costs. The regional pricing mode, multi-cloud complexity, and cost variety add extra complexity to the cost function. Cloud adoption without a cost governance strategy can result in unexpected expenses. Improper usage, combined with a pay-as-you-go model, can result in a nightmare for business stakeholders who cannot track and manage the monthly costs. Cloud-native services such as AI services, managed databases, and analytics platforms are powerful, provide out-of-the-shelve capabilities, and increase business agility and innovation. H...
Post a Comment
Read more