Wrapping DbSet<TEntity> with a custom DbSet/IDbSet?

问题

First off, I think this is somewhat ridiculous to do but the other members of my team insist upon it and I can't come up with a good argument against it other than "I think it's dumb"...

What we're trying to do is create a completely abstract data layer and then have various implementations of that data layer. Simple enough, right? Enter Entity Framework 4.1...

Our end goal here is that the programmers (I do my best to stay only on the data layer) never want to have to be exposed to the concrete classes. They only ever want to have to use interfaces in their code, aside from obviously needing to instantiate the factory.

I want to achieve something like the following:

First we have our "Common" library of all of the interfaces, we'll call it "Common.Data":

public interface IEntity
{
    int ID { get; set; }
}

public interface IUser : IEntity
{
    int AccountID { get; set; }
    string Username { get; set; }
    string EmailAddress { get; set; }
    IAccount Account { get; set; }
}

public interface IAccount : IEntity
{
    string FirstName { get; set; }
    string LastName { get; set; }
    DbSet<IUser> Users { get; set; } // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
}

public interface IEntityFactory
{
    DbSet<IUser> Users { get; }
    DbSet<IAccount> Accounts { get; }
}

From that we then have an implementation library, we'll call it "Something.Data.Imp":

internal class User : IUser
{
    public int ID { get; set; }
    public string Username { get; set; }
    public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
    public IAccount Account { get; set; }

    public class Configuration : EntityTypeConfiguration<User>
    {
        public Configuration() : base()
        {
             ...
        }
    }
}

internal class Account : IAccount
{
    public int ID { get; set; }
    public string FirstName { get; set; }
    public string LastName { get; set; }
    public DbSet<IUser> Users { get; set; } // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?

    public class Configuration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Account>
    {
        public Configuration() : base()
        {
             ...
        }
    }
}

Factory:

public class ImplEntityFactory : IEntityFactory
{
    private ImplEntityFactory(string connectionString) 
    {
        this.dataContext = new MyEfDbContext(connectionString);
    }
    private MyEfDbContext dataContext;

    public static ImplEntityFactory Instance(string connectionString)
    {
        if(ImplEntityFactory._instance == null)
            ImplEntityFactory._instance = new ImplEntityFactory(connectionString);

        return ImplEntityFactory._instance;
    }
    private static ImplEntityFactory _instance;

    public DbSet<IUser> Users // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
    { 
        get { return dataContext.Users; }
    }

    public DbSet<IAccount> Accounts // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
    {
        get { return dataContext.Accounts; }
    }
}

Context:

public class MyEfDataContext : DbContext
{
    public MyEfDataContext(string connectionString)
        : base(connectionString)
    {
        Database.SetInitializer<MyEfDataContext>(null);
    }

    protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
    {
        modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new User.Configuration());
        modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new Account.Configuration());
        base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
    }

    public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
    public DbSet<Account> Accounts { get; set; }
}

Then the front-end programmers would be using it such as:

public class UsingIt
{
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        IEntityFactory factory = new ImplEntityFactory("SQLConnectionString");
        IUser user = factory.Users.Find(5);
        IAccount usersAccount = user.Account;

        IAccount account = factory.Accounts.Find(3);
        Console.Write(account.Users.Count());
    }
}

So that's pretty much it... I'm hoping someone on here might be able to either point me in the right direction or help me out with a good argument that I can fire back at the development team. I've looked at some other articles on this site about EF not being able to work with interfaces and one reply saying that you can't implement IDbSet (which I find kind of curious, why would they provide it if you couldn't implement it?) but so far to no avail.

Thanks in advance for any help! J

回答1:

The first argument is that EF doesn't work with interfaces. DbSet must be defined with a real entity implementation.

The second argument is that your entities should not contain DbSet - that is context related class and your entities should be pure of such dependency unless you are going to implement Active record pattern. Even in such case you will definitely not have access to DbSet of different entity in another entity. Even if you wrap set you are still too close to EF and entity never have property accessing all entities of another entity type (not only those related to current instance).

Just to make it clear DbSet in EF has very special meaning - it is not a collection. It is entry point to database (for example each LINQ query on DbSet hits database) and it is in normal scenarios not exposed on entities.

The third argument is that you are using a single context per application - you have a single private instance per singleton factory. Unless you are doing some single run batch application it is definitely wrong.

The last argument is simply practical. You are paid for delivering features not for wasting time on abstraction which doesn't give you (and your customer) any business value. It is not about proving why you should not create this abstraction. It is about proving why you should do it. What value will you get from using it? If your colleagues are not able to come with arguments which have business value you can simply go to your product manager and let him use his power - he holds the budget.

Generally abstraction is part of well designed object oriented application - that is correct. BUT:

• Every abstraction will make your application somehow more complex and it will increase cost and time of development
• Not every abstraction will make your application better or more maintainable - too much abstraction has reverse effect
• Abstracting EF is hard. Saying that you will abstract data access in the way that you can replace it with another implementation is task for data access gurus. First of all you must have very good experience with many data access technologies to be able to define such abstraction which will work with all of them (and in the end you can only tell that your abstraction works with technologies you thought about when you design that). Your abstraction will work only with EF DbContext API and with nothing else because it is not an abstraction. If you want to build universal abstraction you should start studying Repository pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Specification pattern - but that is a big deal of work to make them and to implement them universal. The first step needed is to hide everything related to data access behind that abstraction - including LINQ!
• Abstracting data access to support multiple APIs make sense only if you need it now. If you only think that it can be useful in future than it is in business driven projects completely wrong decision and developer who came with that idea is not competent to make business targeting decisions.

When it make sense to do "a lot of" abstraction?

• You have such requirement now - that moves burden of such decision to person responsible for budget / project scope / requirements etc.
• You need abstraction now to simplify design or solve some a problem
• You are doing open source or hobby project and you are not driven by business needs but by purity and quality of your project
• You are working on platform (long living retail product which will live for a long time) or public framework - this generally returns to the first point because this type of products usually have such abstraction as requirement

If you are working only targeted application (mostly single purpose applications on demand or outsourced solutions) the abstraction should be used only if necessary. These applications are driven by costs - the target is delivering working solution for minimal costs and in the shortest time. This target must be achieved even if resulting application will not be very good internally - the only thing which matters is if application meets requirements. Any abstraction based on "what if ... happens" or "perhaps we will need ..." increases costs by virtual (non existing) requirements which will in 99% never happen and in most cases initial contract with customer didn't count which such additional costs.

Btw. this type of applications is targeted by MS APIs and designer strategy - MS will make a lot of designers and code generators which will create non optimal but cheap and quick solutions which can be created by people with smaller skill set and are very cheap. The last example is LightSwitch.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7431756/wrapping-dbsettentity-with-a-custom-dbset-idbset