Handling Entity Framework in connected mode within Windows Forms
$begingroup$
I know the difference between the Entity Framework connected mode vs disconnected mode. In connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext
instance. In disconnected mode we do the stuff and then attach the Entity to a new DbContext
instance.
My problem is that I - for a specific reason - had to create the DbContext
instance globally in the form class without disposing it (I'm disposing the form after closing) and I'm confused and want to review my code and determine if it's a connected or a disconnected mode and if it's good practice to do this:
public partial class FrmProducts : MetroForm
{
public FrmProducts()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
//The DbContext:
FDB.MFdb db = new FDB.MFdb();
private void sfButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
//New row:
if (txtID.Text.Trim() == "")
{
short maxID, newID;
if (db.Products.Count() > 0)
{
maxID = db.Products.Max(p => p.PID);
newID = ++maxID;
}
else
newID = 1;
//New Database Entity:
FDB.Product px = new FDB.Product();
//Set entity data:
px.PID = newID;
px.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
px.P_Name = txtName.Text;
px.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
px.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
px.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
//Add entity to DbContext:
db.Products.Add(px);
db.SaveChanges();
//This is a BindingSource Control:
binSrc.Add(px);
}
else
{
//Edit row:
int pid = Convert.ToInt16(txtID.Text);
var row = db.Products.Single(b => b.PID == pid);
row.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
row.P_Name = txtName.Text;
row.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
row.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
row.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
db.SaveChanges();
}
//Reset BindingSource to reflect updated data:
binSrc.ResetBindings(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + "nInner Exception:n" + ex.InnerException);
}
}
c# .net database entity-framework entity-framework-core
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the difference between the Entity Framework connected mode vs disconnected mode. In connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext
instance. In disconnected mode we do the stuff and then attach the Entity to a new DbContext
instance.
My problem is that I - for a specific reason - had to create the DbContext
instance globally in the form class without disposing it (I'm disposing the form after closing) and I'm confused and want to review my code and determine if it's a connected or a disconnected mode and if it's good practice to do this:
public partial class FrmProducts : MetroForm
{
public FrmProducts()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
//The DbContext:
FDB.MFdb db = new FDB.MFdb();
private void sfButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
//New row:
if (txtID.Text.Trim() == "")
{
short maxID, newID;
if (db.Products.Count() > 0)
{
maxID = db.Products.Max(p => p.PID);
newID = ++maxID;
}
else
newID = 1;
//New Database Entity:
FDB.Product px = new FDB.Product();
//Set entity data:
px.PID = newID;
px.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
px.P_Name = txtName.Text;
px.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
px.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
px.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
//Add entity to DbContext:
db.Products.Add(px);
db.SaveChanges();
//This is a BindingSource Control:
binSrc.Add(px);
}
else
{
//Edit row:
int pid = Convert.ToInt16(txtID.Text);
var row = db.Products.Single(b => b.PID == pid);
row.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
row.P_Name = txtName.Text;
row.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
row.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
row.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
db.SaveChanges();
}
//Reset BindingSource to reflect updated data:
binSrc.ResetBindings(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + "nInner Exception:n" + ex.InnerException);
}
}
c# .net database entity-framework entity-framework-core
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to useusing { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made theDbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the difference between the Entity Framework connected mode vs disconnected mode. In connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext
instance. In disconnected mode we do the stuff and then attach the Entity to a new DbContext
instance.
My problem is that I - for a specific reason - had to create the DbContext
instance globally in the form class without disposing it (I'm disposing the form after closing) and I'm confused and want to review my code and determine if it's a connected or a disconnected mode and if it's good practice to do this:
public partial class FrmProducts : MetroForm
{
public FrmProducts()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
//The DbContext:
FDB.MFdb db = new FDB.MFdb();
private void sfButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
//New row:
if (txtID.Text.Trim() == "")
{
short maxID, newID;
if (db.Products.Count() > 0)
{
maxID = db.Products.Max(p => p.PID);
newID = ++maxID;
}
else
newID = 1;
//New Database Entity:
FDB.Product px = new FDB.Product();
//Set entity data:
px.PID = newID;
px.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
px.P_Name = txtName.Text;
px.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
px.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
px.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
//Add entity to DbContext:
db.Products.Add(px);
db.SaveChanges();
//This is a BindingSource Control:
binSrc.Add(px);
}
else
{
//Edit row:
int pid = Convert.ToInt16(txtID.Text);
var row = db.Products.Single(b => b.PID == pid);
row.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
row.P_Name = txtName.Text;
row.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
row.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
row.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
db.SaveChanges();
}
//Reset BindingSource to reflect updated data:
binSrc.ResetBindings(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + "nInner Exception:n" + ex.InnerException);
}
}
c# .net database entity-framework entity-framework-core
New contributor
$endgroup$
I know the difference between the Entity Framework connected mode vs disconnected mode. In connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext
instance. In disconnected mode we do the stuff and then attach the Entity to a new DbContext
instance.
My problem is that I - for a specific reason - had to create the DbContext
instance globally in the form class without disposing it (I'm disposing the form after closing) and I'm confused and want to review my code and determine if it's a connected or a disconnected mode and if it's good practice to do this:
public partial class FrmProducts : MetroForm
{
public FrmProducts()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
//The DbContext:
FDB.MFdb db = new FDB.MFdb();
private void sfButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
//New row:
if (txtID.Text.Trim() == "")
{
short maxID, newID;
if (db.Products.Count() > 0)
{
maxID = db.Products.Max(p => p.PID);
newID = ++maxID;
}
else
newID = 1;
//New Database Entity:
FDB.Product px = new FDB.Product();
//Set entity data:
px.PID = newID;
px.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
px.P_Name = txtName.Text;
px.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
px.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
px.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
//Add entity to DbContext:
db.Products.Add(px);
db.SaveChanges();
//This is a BindingSource Control:
binSrc.Add(px);
}
else
{
//Edit row:
int pid = Convert.ToInt16(txtID.Text);
var row = db.Products.Single(b => b.PID == pid);
row.P_Code = txtCode.Text;
row.P_Name = txtName.Text;
row.P_Purchase_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtPurchase.Text);
row.P_Sale_Price = Convert.ToDecimal(txtSale.Text);
row.P_Notes = txtNotes.Text;
db.SaveChanges();
}
//Reset BindingSource to reflect updated data:
binSrc.ResetBindings(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + "nInner Exception:n" + ex.InnerException);
}
}
c# .net database entity-framework entity-framework-core
c# .net database entity-framework entity-framework-core
New contributor
New contributor
edited 7 mins ago
Jamal♦
30.3k11119227
30.3k11119227
New contributor
asked yesterday
Ahmed SurorAhmed Suror
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to useusing { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made theDbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to useusing { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made theDbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to use
using { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made the DbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to use
using { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made the DbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is a best-practice to have a clear separation between UI layer (the forms) and data access, so all your data access logic (opening the connection, issuing quries, closing it etc.) should be handled in a separate class (service) that can be reused by other classes / forms.
This will help you have a single place to handle specific things like logging, reverting changes on error:
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
}
Also, EF contexts are typically used for a short period (new + query stuff + save changes + dispose) because a Dispose does not mean a connection close (in most cases) since connection pooling kicks in. So, there is really no significant penalty, but you make sure that there no undisposed context lurking around.
There might be exceptions to this, such as when using a unit of work pattern which uses a connection per "unit of work" (e.g. thread, request), but stick the above for the beginning and you will be fine.
As a conclusion:
- move all database context logic into a separate class
- put all context related logic into a
using
block that ensures context disposal
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not usingUsing { }
is that I'm binding aDataGridView
using aBindingSource
to the same globalDbContext
to make sure thatDbContext
see all modifications made to theBindingSource
, and if I used two different instances ofDbContext
the changes toBindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Ahmed Suror is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214186%2fhandling-entity-framework-in-connected-mode-within-windows-forms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is a best-practice to have a clear separation between UI layer (the forms) and data access, so all your data access logic (opening the connection, issuing quries, closing it etc.) should be handled in a separate class (service) that can be reused by other classes / forms.
This will help you have a single place to handle specific things like logging, reverting changes on error:
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
}
Also, EF contexts are typically used for a short period (new + query stuff + save changes + dispose) because a Dispose does not mean a connection close (in most cases) since connection pooling kicks in. So, there is really no significant penalty, but you make sure that there no undisposed context lurking around.
There might be exceptions to this, such as when using a unit of work pattern which uses a connection per "unit of work" (e.g. thread, request), but stick the above for the beginning and you will be fine.
As a conclusion:
- move all database context logic into a separate class
- put all context related logic into a
using
block that ensures context disposal
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not usingUsing { }
is that I'm binding aDataGridView
using aBindingSource
to the same globalDbContext
to make sure thatDbContext
see all modifications made to theBindingSource
, and if I used two different instances ofDbContext
the changes toBindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a best-practice to have a clear separation between UI layer (the forms) and data access, so all your data access logic (opening the connection, issuing quries, closing it etc.) should be handled in a separate class (service) that can be reused by other classes / forms.
This will help you have a single place to handle specific things like logging, reverting changes on error:
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
}
Also, EF contexts are typically used for a short period (new + query stuff + save changes + dispose) because a Dispose does not mean a connection close (in most cases) since connection pooling kicks in. So, there is really no significant penalty, but you make sure that there no undisposed context lurking around.
There might be exceptions to this, such as when using a unit of work pattern which uses a connection per "unit of work" (e.g. thread, request), but stick the above for the beginning and you will be fine.
As a conclusion:
- move all database context logic into a separate class
- put all context related logic into a
using
block that ensures context disposal
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not usingUsing { }
is that I'm binding aDataGridView
using aBindingSource
to the same globalDbContext
to make sure thatDbContext
see all modifications made to theBindingSource
, and if I used two different instances ofDbContext
the changes toBindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a best-practice to have a clear separation between UI layer (the forms) and data access, so all your data access logic (opening the connection, issuing quries, closing it etc.) should be handled in a separate class (service) that can be reused by other classes / forms.
This will help you have a single place to handle specific things like logging, reverting changes on error:
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
}
Also, EF contexts are typically used for a short period (new + query stuff + save changes + dispose) because a Dispose does not mean a connection close (in most cases) since connection pooling kicks in. So, there is really no significant penalty, but you make sure that there no undisposed context lurking around.
There might be exceptions to this, such as when using a unit of work pattern which uses a connection per "unit of work" (e.g. thread, request), but stick the above for the beginning and you will be fine.
As a conclusion:
- move all database context logic into a separate class
- put all context related logic into a
using
block that ensures context disposal
$endgroup$
It is a best-practice to have a clear separation between UI layer (the forms) and data access, so all your data access logic (opening the connection, issuing quries, closing it etc.) should be handled in a separate class (service) that can be reused by other classes / forms.
This will help you have a single place to handle specific things like logging, reverting changes on error:
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Discard Db Changes if error occurred:
foreach (var ent in db.ChangeTracker.Entries())
{
if (ent.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
else if (ent.State == EntityState.Added)
{
ent.State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
}
Also, EF contexts are typically used for a short period (new + query stuff + save changes + dispose) because a Dispose does not mean a connection close (in most cases) since connection pooling kicks in. So, there is really no significant penalty, but you make sure that there no undisposed context lurking around.
There might be exceptions to this, such as when using a unit of work pattern which uses a connection per "unit of work" (e.g. thread, request), but stick the above for the beginning and you will be fine.
As a conclusion:
- move all database context logic into a separate class
- put all context related logic into a
using
block that ensures context disposal
answered 23 hours ago
AlexeiAlexei
1,442729
1,442729
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not usingUsing { }
is that I'm binding aDataGridView
using aBindingSource
to the same globalDbContext
to make sure thatDbContext
see all modifications made to theBindingSource
, and if I used two different instances ofDbContext
the changes toBindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not usingUsing { }
is that I'm binding aDataGridView
using aBindingSource
to the same globalDbContext
to make sure thatDbContext
see all modifications made to theBindingSource
, and if I used two different instances ofDbContext
the changes toBindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...
$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not using
Using { }
is that I'm binding a DataGridView
using a BindingSource
to the same global DbContext
to make sure that DbContext
see all modifications made to the BindingSource
, and if I used two different instances of DbContext
the changes to BindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The specific reason for not using
Using { }
is that I'm binding a DataGridView
using a BindingSource
to the same global DbContext
to make sure that DbContext
see all modifications made to the BindingSource
, and if I used two different instances of DbContext
the changes to BindingSource
don't commit to the original data source and vice versa...$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@AhmedSuror - yes, this is a valid scenario that I have not used in many years, as I typically work in 3-tier architecture (UI talks to an application server / REST API only and cannot see the database at all).
$endgroup$
– Alexei
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Ahmed Suror is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ahmed Suror is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ahmed Suror is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ahmed Suror is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214186%2fhandling-entity-framework-in-connected-mode-within-windows-forms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
The current question title, which states your concerns about the code, is too general to be useful here. The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code. Please see How to Ask for examples, and revise the title accordingly.
$endgroup$
– Jamal♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
in connected mode we do all the stuff inside one single DbContext instance -- Doesn't that answer you own question is it a connected or a disconnected mode? Whether or not it's good practice is opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– Gert Arnold
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GertArnold I know that connected mode means that a single instance handles all data operation, but the famous practice is to use
using { }
and do all the stuff inside it. Here I didn't follow that practice and made theDbContext
at form level which made me confused. Thanks for reply.$endgroup$
– Ahmed Suror
8 hours ago