I have a MS Sql 2005 Database , and I want to generate Visual BAsic code of Data Entity Class, I search the web but I can find a tool that I want. If you any information or link please help me.
I've heard that Enterprise Architect has an entity/ORM framework generator for VB6, but I can't say for sure. I suggest you start looking there. reference
I had to roll my own at work, but it's copyrighted by the company so I wouldn't be able to post it here. I can give you a brief synopsis if you want to try it yourself:
I created a "base class" for an entity (VB6 doesn't support inheritance, so this was actually a "wrapped" base class)
Has Methods like Insert, Update, LoadByPrimaryKey, etc.
I created a similar "base class" for a collection of entities.
Supports simple .Where and .OrderBy methods that build a query
I created a code generator that pulled a list of tables from the database
It generates a module for each table with an Enum listing each column name as an ID, and lookup tables to go from column enum to column name, and back
It generates an entity class for each table that wraps the base entity, and has property setters/getters corresponding to each column name
It generates an entity collection class for each table that wraps the base collection class
Related
I'm having a few tables on SQL Server, which have similar structure - int Id and string Value.
This tables linked to main table via foreign key, so I'm wrote a bit of logic for mapping a string values to id's in models in MVC Razor. This feature requires that models used as dictionary implement simple IKeyValue interface with Id and Value, but after updating model from database I can loose interface implementation from models and must write it again.
Any way to automate this?
Are you modifying the auto-generated file? If so, you should not do this, for the exact reason you describe in your question -- it will get overwritten.
All of the classes in the generated file should be partial. You can take advantage of this by creating another class (in a different file, but in the same project), make sure it has the same declaration (and namespace), and have it implement the interface. This way the class will implement the interface, but will not be overwritten the next time you refresh the schema from the database.
I am currently working on a project where we are rewriting software that was originally written in Visual DataFlex and we are changing it to use SQL and rewriting it into a C# client program and a C#/ASP.Net website. The current database for this is really horrible and has just had columns added to table or pipe(|) characters stuck between the cell values when they needed to add new fields. So we have things like a person table with over 200 columns because stuff like 6 lots of (addressline1, addressline2, town, city, country, postcode) columns for storing different addresses (home/postal/accountPostal/ect...).
What we would like to do is restructure the database, but we also need to keep using the current structure so that the original software can still work as well. What I would like to know is would it be possible using Linq to write a DataContext Object Model Class that could sort of interpret the data base structures so that we could continue to use the current database structure, but to the code it could look like we where using the new structure, and then once different modules of the software are rewritten we could change the object model to use the correct data structure???
First of all, since you mention the DataContext I think you're looking at Linq to SQL? I would advice to use the Entity Framework. The Entity Framework has more advanced modeling capabilities that you can use in a scenario as yours. It has the ability to construct for example a type from multiple tables, use inheritance or complex types.
The Entity Framework creates a model for you that consists of three parts.
SSDL which stores how your database looks.
CSDL which stores your model (your objects and the relationships between them)
MSL which tells the Entity Framework how to map from your objects to the database structure.
Using this you can have a legacy database and map this to a Domain Model that's more suited to your needs.
The Entity Framework has the ability to create a starting model from your database (where all tables, columns and associations are mapped) en then you can begin restructuring this model.
These classes are generated as partial so you could extend them by for exampling splitting the database piped fields into separate properties.
Have you also thought about using Views? If possible you could at views to your database that give you a nicer dataschema to work with and then base your model on the views in combination with stored procedures.
Hope this gives you any ideas.
Given the need to "Update Model from Database" fairly frequently from the .edmx diagram, is there a way to modify the rules by which Visual Studio attempts to "singularize" the entities?
An example would be the aspnet_Users entity which is never corrected to become its singular form of aspnet_User. I'm tiring of manually correcting this name in not only the entity itself, but the 10 or 12 navigation properties involving this entity.
Any suggestions?
Try Entity Developer. We provide flexible Naming Rules:
(source: devart.com)
I've just performed a test, and aspnet_users table was named AspnetUser in the conceptual model.
I have three tables Projects, Users and ProjectMembers. The ProjectMembers table is a mapping table and has only two columns ProjectId and UserId.
In my object model i have two classes Project and User. The Project class has a property IEnumerable<User> Members
I am using an external xml map file for mapping linq to sql associations. I am able to get the Project and the User data but I dont know how to map the Members association.
This sounds like a Many-to-Many mapping (Projects <-> Users).
In which case you are going to run into problems using Linq To SQL. To cut a long story short it does not really support that mapping. There are several workarounds which you can find on google, one of which is altering the partial class to provide the access to the Members/Projects collection on the Project and User classes respectively.
e.g. http://www.iaingalloway.com/2015/06/many-to-many-relationships-in-linq-to-sql.html
Have been trying out the new Dynamic Data site create tool that shipped with .NET 3.5. The tool uses LINQ Datasources to get the data from the database using a .dmbl context file for a reference. I am interseted in customizing a data grid but I need to show data from more than one table. Does anyone know how to do this using the LINQ Datasource object?
If the tables are connected by a foreign key, you can easily reference both tables as they will be joined by linq automatically (you can see easily if you look in your dbml and there is an arrow connecting the tables) - if not, see if you can add one.
To do that, you can just use something like this:
<%# Bind("unit1.unit_name") %>
Where in the table, 'unit' has a foreign key that references another table and you pull that 'unit's property of 'unit_name'
I hope that makes sense.
(EDIT misunderstood the question, revising my answer to the following)
Your LinqDataSource could point to a view, which allows you to overcome the problem of not being able to express a Join in the actual element. From "How to: Create LINQ to SQL Classes Mapped to Tables and Views (O/R Designer)":
The O/R Designer is a simple object relational mapper because it supports only 1:1 mapping relationships. In other words, an entity class can have only a 1:1 mapping relationship with a database table or view. Complex mapping, such as mapping an entity class to multiple tables, is not supported. However, you can map an entity class to a view that joins multiple related tables.
You cannot put more than one object/datasource on a datagrid. You will have to build a single ConceptObject that combines the exposed properties of the part Entities. Try to use DB -> L2S Entities -> ConceptObject. You must be very contrived if the DB model matches the ConceptObject field-for-field.
You are best using a ObjectDataSource when you wnt to do more complex Linq and bind your Grid to the ObjectDataSource.
You do however need to watch out for Anonymous types that could give you some trouble, but anything is posible...