I am using a similar approach to others in keeping my LINQ objects in my LINQ data provider and returning an IQueryable to allow filtering etc. This works fine for filtering a
I ended up not using filters for my complex queries. Instead, I added methods to the repository for the more complex query requirements. I feel this will make the system easier to understand and hence maintain.
Linq2SQL does only understand the designer-generated objects. Well, that's not entirely true, but close enough.
So when you write Linq queries agains Linq2SQL objects, the query will be converted to valid SQL when the query is actually executed, not when it's written. Since your DTO objects are not Linq2SQL objects, Linq2SQL will not know how to create the proper SQL.
If you want to keep your separation this way, you have to find a way to execute your queries with only Linq2SQL objects involved and only map the result to your DTOs.
Maybe you could rewrite your query method to:
Update: Parameter must be of type
Expression<>
, and there's no need to return anIQueryable<>
. Thanks to Freddy for pointing out.
public IEnumerable<DTO.Position> FindPositions(Expression<Func<Position, bool>> criteria)
{
return from p in coreDB.Positions
where criteria.Invoke(p)
select new DTO.Position
{
User = new DTO.User(p.User.id, p.User.username, p.User.firstName, p.User.lastName,
p.User.email, p.User.isActive),
Role = new DTO.Role(p.Role.id, p.Role.name, p.Role.isActive),
OrgUnit = new DTO.OrgUnit(p.OrgUnit.id, p.OrgUnit.name, p.OrgUnit.isActive)
};
}
I have been able to work successfully with a similar approach:
var courses = from c in Map(origCourses)
where !expiredStatuses.Contains(c.Status)
select c;
Where Map has:
select new UserCourseListItem
{
CourseID = c.CourseID,
CourseName = cm.CourseName,
CourseType = c.CourseType.Value
...
How about trying it with that type of initialization (instead of constructors).
Ps. this is part of a working application, and the expiredStatuses is even related to a complex expression.
Update 1: This is similar compared to the mentioned scenario, because: