StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PODoes the following code violate Persistence Ignorance rule
primarykey
Id
12715150
data
AcceptedAnswerId
12715196
AnswerCount
2
ClosedDate
CommentCount
0
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2012-10-03T19:06:53.337
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2012-10-04T15:41:21.733
LastEditDate
2012-10-03T19:36:20.380
LastEditorUserId
702769
OwnerUserId
702769
ParentId
0
PostTypeId
1
Score
0
ViewCount
344
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
a) Domain entities shouldn't contain code related to persistence, thus they should be Persistence Ignorant PI. But assuming Domain Model DM is designed using Entity Framework and assuming that service layer performs CRUD operation for POCO domain entities via Linq-to-Entities, would we argue that service layer accesses DAL directly or via Domain Model: <pre><code>class CustomerService { public string doSomething( ... ) { ... var customer = context.Customers.Where( ... ); ... } ... } </code></pre> b) Does using Linq-to-Entities within DM violate PI rule? For example, does the following <code>Customer</code> entity violate PI: <pre><code>class Customer { public string InterestedWhatOtherCustomerOrdered( ... ) { ... var orders = context.Orders.Where( ... ); // does this violate PI rule? ... } ... } </code></pre> REPLY TO Luke McGregor: a) <blockquote> Yeah it does as it refers to the context directly. A better way would be to use the internal navigation properties on Customer to perform the same action, </blockquote> So instead navigation properties should contact the context?! But since navigation properties also reside within domain model, couldn't we then argue that by contacting the context directly, they too would violate PI? b) According to Fowler's PEAA chapter on Data Mapper, it is ok to extract from Data Mapper any methods needed by the domain code into an interface class, which domain code can then use. How exactly could that be done when using EF instead of hand written Data Mapper, in such a manner that we wouldn't violate PI? thank you
Tags
<entity-framework><design-patterns><orm><domain-driven-design>
Title
Does the following code violate Persistence Ignorance rule
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. PO
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTAnswer
PostParentId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTQuestion
UserLastEditorUserId
1. USuser702769
UserOwnerUserId
1. USuser702769
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. PL
 singulars
 LinkTypeLinkTypeId
 LTLinked
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. PO
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTAnswer
2. PO
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTAnswer
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
CommentsPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.