Talk:Entity Framework

comment

"The disadvantage of this approach is that if this schema is changed the application is not shielded from the change."

This is not the disadvantage of tying app code to db schema, this is a myth. DB schemas should NOT change in ways that break apps. And if/when they do (such as during development), it's probably because the app is required to change accordingly, so being "shielded" from the change is besides the point.

The greatest disadvantage of code being tied directly to the db schema model is cognitive: db physical schemas rarely represent the domain model well, yet the latter is what we'd like to work with in OO code.

Better Word Than "Format" ?

"It is geared towards solving the mismatch between the formats in which data is stored in a database and in which it is consumed in an object-oriented programming language or other front ends."

I think "formats" is the wrong word. It goes beyond what most people think of as formatting. Better would be something like "architecture", or "organizational structure", etc.

Larry Leonard (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Schema? --soum ^talk 04:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs Better Opening

I just got back from TechEd and was talking about this with the guys from MS. Everyone things their product is doing something new or different so they don't want to fully categorize it as ORM or something else. But this is exactly what the Entity Framework is. Just because they make their other services aware of EF doesn't make it different from any other ORM framework. I.E. you can use Jasper reports in Java against Hibernate.

Anyway I would like the opening paragraph to more clearly define EF, again not marketing jargon but based on what it is, not just it's vision. --Kibbled bits (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reads as advert

Much of this text is very close to MS' own documentation on the feature and doesn't question their assertions of superiority over the standard means of doing this - a well-designed application will be shielded from change to the logical data model by views and stored procedures in any case, which this does not at all mention. Eftpotrm (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrible

I am not the most advanced programmer out there, but I choose to use Microsoft Access, Visual Basic scripting, ASP, and ADO on a regular basis and am attempting to learn ASP.NET and ADO.NET. I cannot make any sense out this article. It is just chock full of jargon that I cannot follow. For reference, I cannot follow most of Microsoft's documentation either, instead relying on other people's interpretations and simplifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.9.250 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How Is This Neutral?

Claiming that EF is "far superior than NHibernate," which, by the way should read "far superior to NHibernate," is just obscene. Not only is there no proof, I'm not even sure there is a way to prove such an assumption. Flag time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.44.164 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Entity SQL lacks joins?

"It differs from SQL in that it does not have explicit constructs for joins because the EDM is designed to abstract partitioning data across tables"

Huh? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb387167.aspx Would seem to imply otherwise... and frankly if you could not join tables that are not explicity related by some foreign key (but there's an implicit relationship, say zipcodes) through linq to entities or Enities SQL, you'd probably use a different ORM. 71.154.18.245 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Visual Studio 2010 with Entity Framework beta

"The second version of Entity Framework [...] is available in Beta form as part of Visual Studio 2010,..."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've found no evidence that Visual Studio 2010 is shipped with a beta-version of EF. I'm guessing that is refers to the release candidate of VS2010.

Unused footnotes

The following references appeared in the reference list but were not used in prior text. Please return to the reference list once they have been cited in the main article. EagerToddler39 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for almost a month. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

---

ADO.NET Entity Framework → Entity Framework – I think this was maybe known as ADO.NET Entity Framework at one time, but the common name is now just Entity Framework. Evidence: Official site, O'Reilly book, Experts' voice "Pro" series book --Relisted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Abstain for the time being. (May change in due course.) Your Google Book sources actually refer to them as "ADO.NET Entity Framework" and use "Entity Framework" alone when they are short of space. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The overview is an advertisement

Well, of course the whole thing is probably copied in bulk from MS sources, but the overview is some of the worst since it doesn't really give you an overview but merely touts the greatness of EF.

Could someone (more knowledgeable than I) rewrite the overview in a rather more neutral and scholarly form to summarize the features, advantages, and disadvantages of EF?drh (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Entity Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001210614/http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0672330741 to http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0672330741

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Entity Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120170901/http://blogs.msdn.com:80/adonet/archive/2009/05/11/update-on-the-entity-framework-in-net-4-and-visual-studio-2010.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2009/05/11/update-on-the-entity-framework-in-net-4-and-visual-studio-2010.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325142128/http://blogs.msdn.com:80/b/adonet/archive/2012/02/29/ef4-3-1-and-ef5-beta-1-available-on-nuget.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2012/02/29/ef4-3-1-and-ef5-beta-1-available-on-nuget.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330034136/http://blogs.msdn.com:80/b/adonet/archive/2013/10/17/ef6-rtm-available.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2013/10/17/ef6-rtm-available.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929124551/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2014/05/19/ef7-new-platforms-new-data-stores.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2014/05/19/ef7-new-platforms-new-data-stores.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the "schema definition language" section's EBNF correct?

I just made a formatting-only change that appears to have exposed a flaw in the existing EBNF. (This aforementioned change will show as anonymous because I was unknowingly not logged in when I made the change.) The closing parenthesis on line 27 seems to belong after line 9 (I mistakenly said line 4 in the summary for the aforementioned change).

Additionally, usage of parentheses seems to be inconsistent.

I'm not an expert in the nuances and style of EBNF, so please review the above with a critical eye.

Business as a business entity

Explanation 41.116.6.42 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ayanda

Mjojweni 41.116.6.42 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)