entity-framework-4.1

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

I am using entity framework 4.1.What is the best way to handle concurrency with entity framework. Is there inbuilt functionality to handle it in entity framework? Can I do without adding extra column to the tables to keep row version? Have you seen this tutorial: http://www.asp.net/entity-framework/tutorials/handling-concurrency-with-the-entity-framework-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application You can do it without a rowversion column but that often requires storing a lot of state, which can adversely affect performance. You can set up a column in your tables named RowVersion and tell Entity Framework

I'm using the Entity Framework version 4.2. There are two classes in my small test app: public class TestParent { public int TestParentID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Comment { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TestChild> TestChildren { get; set; } } public class TestChild { public int TestChildID { get; set; } public int TestParentID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Comment { get; set; } public virtual TestParent TestParent { get; set; } } Populating objects with data from the database works well. So I can use testParent

I want to use Entity Framework without app.config file. I want to define a string variable Connection String in my code and use that to connect to the database. Please show me the way if it is possible. marc_s You're not mentioning what approach you're using (database-first, model-first, code-first) - but basically, in the end, you need to define a string variable and assign it a valid EF connection string string myConnectionString = "...(define a valid EF connection string here)......"; Example for database-first approach: string myConnectionString = @"metadata=.\Model1.csdl|.\Model1.ssdl|.

I have this query var test = context.Assignments .Include(a => a.Customer) .Include(a => a.Subscriptions) .Select(a => new AssignmentWithSubscriptionCount { SubscriptionCount = a.Subscriptions.Count(), Assignment = a }) .ToList(); var name = test.First().Assignment.Customer.Name; It failes to eagerly load Customer, I've seen similar problems here on stackoverflow and it looks like you cant use projections with include. But I have not found a solution to my problem.. Anyone? edit: Here is a eager load with projection that work, its more complex than the example above so I cant for my life