I have a C# application that needs to connect to either an Oracle database or a SQLite database. The databases can be considered "identical" - same schema - but users have the ability to "load" their own SQLite file for faster local access. I'm trying to design a data access layer for this need.

My problem is that the abstract DbCommand and DbParameter classes don't have a very useful user interface. For example, DbCommand.Parameters.Add(object) is not well typed (and has unclear semantics in general). I am aware that DbCommand.CreateDbParameter() exists and creates a DbParameter that can be populated with data. In contrast, SQLiteCommand.Parameters.Add is overloaded with several parameters that specify what the parameter name and value are.

I see two unsatisfactory options -

  1. Create an interface and make two classes which implement it. There is potential for some shared data - perhaps query strings, but even then differing parameter syntax may disallow this. This duplicates code but best utilizes the database provider APIs.

  2. Create a single class that relies on the generic implementation. Have the constructor/methods accept a connection DbConnection, and execute the same code on different connections. It's unclear whether this is even possible due to syntax issues from point 1. If possible this would create a single, flexible class, which may be clunky internally.

Are there any "native" C# ways to handle this case gracefully? I am surprised that the abstract base DbXxx classes are so useless. The ADO.NET docs are housed under a .NET Framework category, which seems to imply it's legacy technology. I wouldn't think a language as popular as C# would not come with a well typed way to add parameters to queries; it's not a vendor specific feature. Go's database/sql built in package, for example, handles all these cases.

I do not want to use Entity Framework - this is application replaces legacy software which has some custom queries which are sloppy to translate into LINQ/EF.

  • 2
    The body of your post seems to answer the question in the title, so what is you actual question?
    – Rik D
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 17:47
  • Implementing in python would let you take advantage of the sqlalchemy abstraction layer, which is very mature and supports a bunch of backend DBs. Even if you stick with C# for moving rows around, you could still portably construct a query in python and then use str(query) to render the SELECT in a vendor-specific sql dialect, which your C# app consumes.
    – J_H
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 17:52
  • 2
    Entity Framework doesn't force you to use LINQ; anything which doesn't work very well in EF could be queried through Dapper.NET instead: stackoverflow.com/questions/28849031/… - (StackExchange is built around a combination of Dapper and EF) Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 22:58
  • @RikD - I edited to clarify, though Doc Brown sees to have gotten at it.
    – Adam
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 15:41
  • "some custom queries which are sloppy to translate into LINQ/EF" I'm going to go ahead and take a stab in the dark that it's not the translation that would be sloppy, but rather than the current queries are sloppy and translating them into EF+LINQ would be hard because it forces you to structure your queries. If you agree with that assessment, I put forward that the effort of translation will pay back dividends in future maintainability. Secondly, if you have legacy queries that you are apprehensive of ever touching, you have a significant problem on your hands regardless of EF+LINQ.
    – Flater
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 22:49

1 Answer 1


Well, we don't know much about your application, its size and requirements in regards to database access. But the usual standard approach I would recommend here is:

  1. Start creating some DBMS independent interface for your DAL which suits your needs, specificially when used from your legacy application. The crucial part here is to avoid dynamic SQL as parameters in this interface, because SQL dialects are most often too DBMS specific to allow the usage of SQL as an abstraction layer.

  2. Make two different implementations of that interface, one for each DBMS. Here, things like custom queries might require to be implemented twice, each one with an implementation tailored for the specific DBMS.

  3. Whenever you notice your two different implementations share some similar logic, try to refactor them into a common place, like a common base class which is placed between your interface and the implementation classes.

Of course, when you are able to choose an implementation technology for step 2 which allows different DBMSs to be accessed by exactly the same code, most of the code will end up in step 3 in just one class. You got some suggestions in the comments like using Dapper or EF without LINQ. But this is not necessarily an all-or-nothing decision, you may be able to generalize some parts and let some others exists as specific implementations.

This is also a question of size: for a "small" data access layer, staying with a simple technology like ADO.NET and living with some duplicate query logic may be acceptable. For a larger DAL, the expected costs of introducing another abstraction layer like some ORM or micro ORM may be far below the costs of maintaining hundreds of duplicate queries.

TLDR: instead of trying to make the decision up-front, go a route which allows you to make the decision incrementally and gradually, as you go.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.