Entity Framework - Schema Upgrade, Multiple DBMS, and Code First_问答_开发者

I'm looking into using Microsoft's Entity Framework in an upcoming project which is a point release of an existing product. Our current product supports two DBMS (Oracle and SQL Server), the schema of each is maintained in separate .sql script files.

The entity framework (4.1) looks appealing because it allows various scenarios to be implemented automa开发者_JAVA百科tically via code generation, reflection, etc. However, as far as I can tell, some of these benefits appear to be mutually exclusive of others.

For example, to support multiple DMBSes, I am inferring that I would need to use a model or code first design, in which case EF would generate the schema for each according to the model (I have seen little to no posts or documentation on this, so I may be wrong). This means that our existing schema would need to be either abandoned (model-first), or mapped (code-first). Additionally, updating the schema would require manual scripts as EF does not appear to support schema upgrades (without wiping out data).

Are model-first and code-first the only viable means of supporting multiple DBMSes in EF? I realize that technically it would be impossible to guarantee that two arbitrary schemae are the same, so I am thinking this is true.
Are there any potential pitfalls of code-first and mapping to multiple DBMS systems? For example, Oracle does not have auto-increment columns; you have to use sequences. How is this mapped in the DbContext? Do I need to create separate maps for each DBMS?
Does EF support any mechanism to upgrade an existing DBMS schema to one of which is representative of the EF model (schema recreation =/= upgrade), or am I limited to doing this manually?
I did come up with one possible way to use database first and support multiple DBMSes, however it is a maintenance nightmare. The idea was to add another layer of abstraction to the two generated data models and create converter classes for each of the EF generated models. This seems like the best way of doing it so that each DBMS could potentially have its own model, yet my code would handle the mapping. But in doing this, what am I really gaining from EF? Maybe query generation, but is that worth it?

Actually both the model-first and the database-first have same constraints. Both these approaches are using an EDMX file which contains SSDL (a description of store = a database layer) part related directly to a single database provider so if you want to have two different database providers you must have two different SSDL parts and keep them in sync. You can use single CSDL (a description of conceptual layer = your model classes) and a single or two MSLs (a description of mapping between SSDL and CSDL - a single file is possible only if tables and columns will have exactly same names in both SSDLs). As I know EDMX file can consists only from single SSDL, CSDL and MSL parts so I expect that the designer has no support for this scenario and you will have to modify second SSDL manually or use two EDMXs = model each change twice.

The code-first approach can make this much more simple but the question is how good is Oracle provider when using the code-first and the database generation. The provider is responsible for correctly interpreting needed features like sequences in case of auto increment columns.

EF itself currently has no support for upgrading existing DB. When using EDMX the process of the database generation is controlled either by T4 template or Workflow so it can be customized and there is already separate feature called Entity Designer Database Generation Power Pack which allow incremental building of the database with the model-first approach. The problem is that this feature is using VS Database tools. I think these tools works only with SQL server. I never like these automated tools so I still think that database upgrade should be controlled manually with help of some tools to get difference script between the current and the last deployed database versions. You should need diff script only when deploying new the new version to a production environment. In a testing and a development environment you can always recreate the whole database.

There should be no abstraction needed when working with two EDMX models. Models must produce the same conceptual layer. In such case you need only a single set of POCO classes which are mapped by conventions (same class name as the entity, same properties with same types and accesibility) so they will work with both models.

Edit:

Based on @Tridus answer I'm just adding that you can create databases first and use fluentAPI from EF 4.1 to map them. Your databases must have exactly the same schema (table names, column names, etc.), they can't use any specific features (I hope sequences will not be the problem because it is just the way how Oracle handles auto increment columns).

This is actually fairly doable with a database first design, but there's some caveats you won't be able to get around easily due to how the databases handle things differently.

Sequences are one (in that they're just ignored by EF entirely). You can fake that in Oracle by putting a trigger on the table that populates it on Insert, but I also found that if you have to update the model later then EF "forgets" that the column is an identity column and it'll try to stick a 0 in it again. I also found it unreliable in Oracle to try and get the new ID if you use a trigger. We just wound up selecting from the sequence and setting the ID on the object before doing the insert because that's how you usually do it in Oracle. You could also use a stored procedure that handles it.
Numbers aren't handled the same way. SQL Server uses number formats that map to Int32, Int64, etc. Oracle's number format is totally different and a full range Int32 in SQL Server is a Number(10,0) in Oracle... which is actually an Int64 in EF because it's bigger then an Int32. I also found that Oracle's EF provider likes to use Decimal a lot even when it doesn't have to, but that's probably just a beta issue.
Stored Procedures in Oracle require some values to be put in app.config/web.config in order to work in EF. I'm not sure if that's going to just be clutter in SQL Server or if it'll cause problems.

Finally, EF Code First is pretty immature and according to the docs doesn't support changing the database structure in this version. I'm not sure if Oracle's provider supports it either (it might, haven't tried it).

Most of this is stuff you can get around, but you're going to need to do some work to hide the differences from the rest of your code and it'll probably take a wrapper layer to do it.

edit - In regards to your #4 - EF 4.1 can generate partial POCO classes. Instead of writing a wrapper around each of the generated models to hide any differences, you can create another partial class code file that won't be regenerated when you update the model, and then add properties/methods that hide the differences. Your app code would just have to be aware to use those instead, and they'd handle the issue (like the number issue I mentioned, you could completely hide it with another property that can do the necessary casting for Oracle).