|
+1 for Dapper along with Dapper.Contrib.
I actively avoid contracts that state EF as a requirement. I understand for some people it's the dog danglies but I can't see a compelling case to use EF.
I know that's just my mileage but I genuinely would like to know why people use EF as opposed to a micro-orm like Dapper or PetaPoco.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't see your [Dapper] reply before I submitted mine. I use Dapper as well, for the primary reason that you mentioned, it's insanely fast!
|
|
|
|
|
Rolled my own, which of course has developed over various projects.
I have looked at NHibernate and EF. Found NHibernate to be badly documented to the point I couldn't (on my own, as a freelancer) actually get anything to work at all. EF was simple enough to get started with, but trying to maintain it without everything breaking was difficult. Even harder when trying to either optimise things or extend functionality.
My own seems very easy to maintain/extend, but of course that's because I know every line of code having written them. I guess to an outside it might be tricky and it does require some hand-coding for each object; but it's a very mechanical process involving just 2 lines of code per d/b field, and a couple of constants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dapper [by Stackoverflow guy(s)]. I love it. Small, straight to the point. I only need it for executing stored procedures, and/or getting results back via stored procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a homegrown ORM called Postulate that is built around Dapper, with a CP article here in fact: Intro to Postulate ORM[^] This article is a bit out of date as I actively work on it here: [^]
I completely agree that EF is too complicated, and in particular it's the Migrations feature I have found really painful. (In fairness, my gf uses it at work, and she has no real issue with it. I guess your mileage may vary.)
I think ORM is neat area to work in, and I simply have a lot of passion for it. I've found it a really interesting challenge to balance simplicity and power. Dapper makes a lot of good things possible -- I'm a huge fan of Dapper.
I admire Dapper.FastCrud (I think it's called), it's another ORM built around Dapper as the name suggests, and I sort of envy the simplicity they achieved. I do a few extra things to support code-first and some special tooling to generate database tables from model classes.
I've actually never used Linq to SQL, but I hear lots of praise for it.
|
|
|
|
|
I always feel doubt when user first say "it's cool thing" and next they show WRAPPER or any other addition to the thing they name "cool". If it's so "cool", why it needs wrappers?? Really cool stuff has nothing to add/remove and it's simple to use. In this light I always recommend BLToolkit - the lib I never heard to be "wrapped", "stripped" or whatever. And it solves all my problems in one line of code almost always.
|
|
|
|
|
I highly recommend to look at BLToolkit (as a most stable and easy to use library) or it's successor (less stable, but like LINQ) linq2db.
We use BLToolkit for years and it's always enjoyment to solve all tasks in ONE LINE of code!
|
|
|
|
|
I too am a fan of Linq to SQL. I've taken a lot of flack for it from other developers though. The ONLY advantage I can think of for EF is that it's database agnostic, supposedly making it easier to change database engines...but I think that's an awful idea. Changing database engines is a big deal and should be treated as such!
|
|
|
|
|
Some don't seem to know the difference between an ORM and a "database engine"; and expect what is essentially a "logical entity to physical entity mapping" to behave like an SQL optimizer; and that "views", stored procs and sql pass through are now "no longer required".
They also confuse "operational" versus "informational"; ORM's are more applicable to LOB than data warehousing (and denormalizing).
I use EF (code first); and use it before resorting / supplementing with DDL and DML.
It's not "all or nothing". EF (i.e. ORM's) can co-exisit with other access methods.
As some pointed out, use ORM for CRUD (if you will); use BI for the informational; and "raw" for the rest.
And "data transfer objects" are a valid pattern; and not necessarily "redundant". With consistent naming, copying can be done via reflection.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Does the Flat Earth Society have members all round the world?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'll do my level best to find out (within my sphere of influence), orbit a few bucks on the answer.
Whichever comes first.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
modified 12-Apr-18 11:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
No just across the globe.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
I thought they came from all four corners of the Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Does the Flat Earth Society have members all round the worldacross the disc?
FTFY 
Ad astra - both ways!
|
|
|
|
|
Dunno. But I will ask around!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
What is their sphere of influence?
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
Their horizons aren't very broad, so while they say "no", the rest of us know better. 
|
|
|
|
|
The earth just appears flat because no matter which way you go it's down hill.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit, you're planely right on this ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing Riemanns to be said as the flat Earth idea seems to surface again ...
modified 12-Apr-18 15:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before they "upgraded" us to Win10, I had a utility called WinSCP (FTP app) on my box. We use it to transfer files in SSIS packages.
After Win10, I had to request that my "special apps" be reinstalled. It turns out that I'm not supposed to have WinSCP on my machine, and that it can only be installed on database servers. So now, IA is freaking out, and I'm probably going to have to jump through absurd and pointless hoops to test a package that needs to download a file via FTP.
So now, I'm waiting for our dba guy to tell me how to modify our packages to run the copy on the server. I imaging that I'll have to have a UNC path, but what about credentials? And if they give me the credentials to run it remotely on the server, why would that be any different than just running it on my own machine - without credentials - like I've been doing for the last 4+ years?
I thought about just writing my own FTP retrieval script task, but they've probably blocked the port at the firewall, and if anyone tries to use it, security gestapo will descend on that person and escort them out of the building...
I hate this job.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
