Is there any difference between manually adding a DbSet or allowing the table to be automatically created?
I have a type called TypeA
and somewhere in TypeA
there is a property of TypeB
(which contains nothing other than an ID
and String
).
Using Entity Framework, I have created a DbSet
of TypeA
- public DbSet<TypeA>
.
This creates the TypeB
column in the database just fine - however, I now need to seed some data. As TypeB
does not exist in the original DbContext
, I am unable to seed data to it.
I therefore added public DbSet<TypeB>
to my original DbContext
and it didn't even detect a change/difference in the Database schema.
So, this got me wondering, and my question is, Is there any difference in creating a separate DbSet
over one that is automatically created by a relation?
Sample Code
public class TypeA
{
public int id { get; set; 开发者_JAVA技巧}
public string name { get; set; }
public TypeB foo { get; set; }
}
public class TypeB
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
}
Yes, there is a difference.
In design terms, the point of the DbSet
class is to embody the Repository pattern:
Conceptually, a Repository encapsulates the set of objects persisted in a data store and the operations performed over them, providing a more object-oriented view of the persistence layer. Repository also supports the objective of achieving a clean separation and one-way dependency between the domain and data mapping layers.
Its purpose is to encapsulate CRUD for a given entity. In order to do this the repository can't limit itself to just one table. Sometimes it must work with an object tree in the DB.
In your case, having a DbSet
for both types will give you a repository to directly access that entity. This will allow you to query directly for TypeB
or directly create/update TypeB
instances in the DB, rather than always having to always root your queries in TypeA
.
Some of this depends on your associations, though. If you have a constraint on TypeB
that requires a TypeA
, then you can't create them without a TypeA
. However you can still query for them directly.
You can still create or update TypeB
instances without the DbSet<TypeB>
- simply attach one to the TypeA
instance and work against the the DbSet<TypeA>
.
精彩评论