Search Results

A. you can't inject a mock for testing B. you create tight coupling with your ORM classes C. you cant control the way in which the ORM is used ie. drop the tables, run a low performance query etc the … points you outline are ways people have tried to get around these problems 1: hides your ORM classes from the rest of the project and allows mocking 2: I agree with you on this, but it does reduce the …

A more subtle problem is that as an ORM tries to handle all these scenarios in a generic way it gets bigger and more complicated to use. … If you have a large or complicated application, it's likely that at some point you will hit a problem with the ORM you have chosen. …

You can use a generic type IItemRepository<T> { T GetAttributeById(string id); } But you may find you have to use reflection, either to get the Id or map to the object. Sometimes its best jus …

You should be hiding your ORM behind a repository. This allows you to optimise things like a bulk update to custom SQL where required. …

The best way is to include lists of ids rather than full objects. If you include full objects things become clunky You often want a list of all the sub objects, rather than having it split amongst p …

You should use an ORM to save you writing your own. It sounds like your problem is more that there is no consistent design choice in where you put your data access logic. … Just make that architectural design choice and ask if it works better with EF or a lighter ORM. …

I think you are correct in your concerns. In both cases I would separate the repository functions from the object. The document object seems particularly bad in that the logic takes place in the con …

I used to eschew getters and setters, I would "Pah" those who put forward the reasons why they are better for the kind of reasons you suggest. Now I use them all the time without a second thought. No …

In the same aggregation root, there are Car and Computer I think this is where you are going wrong. In your example Computer is the Aggregate Root. You can only have one 'root' object per aggreg …

I think you are treading on dangerous ground here. On one hand you have an LDAP authentication system which also has user name, and extra info in it. On the other you have a domain concept of a prod …

I think there are three issues here. Business logic in SQL is bad. Even if it runs faster individualy, it doesnt scale. Tradiionally SPROCs should always be used for all data access as an abstractio …

The problem with Stored Procedures in your case are the multiple databases. As you point out. if you have to change a sproc you will then have to deploy that change to every database. Where as if yo …

I think the common approach is to drop EF and replace with hand coded repos. But! Here Invoice is your aggregate root object. If i do: myInvoice.Recipient.Name = "new name"; repo.Save(myInvoice); …

No, it's not bad to have private classes in repositories. I guess the confusion would be around why you need a private class. Rather than another option. Use an existing public class. Your Reposit …

using a Generic Repository on top of an ORM which is basically just another Generic Repository. … The answer is to use the basic Repository pattern to hide your ORM …