BT

Facilitating the Spread of Knowledge and Innovation in Professional Software Development

Write for InfoQ
News Articles Presentations Podcasts Guides

Topics

Choose your language

QCon New York

Find real-world practical inspiration from the world’s most innovative software leaders. Attend in-person.
QCon San Francisco

Learn what's next in software from world-class leaders pushing the boundaries. Attend in-person or get video-only pass to recordings.
The Software Architects' Newsletter

Your monthly guide to all the topics, technologies and techniques that every professional needs to know about. Subscribe for free.

InfoQ Homepage News Abstract Interfaces vs Abstract Base Classes in Entity Framework 6

Building an Efficient Cloud Application Architecture (Live Webinar June 22, 2023) - Save Your Seat

Abstract Interfaces vs Abstract Base Classes in Entity Framework 6

Bookmarks

Jun 18, 2013 1 min read

Write for InfoQ

Join a community of experts. Increase your visibility.
Grow your career.Learn more

As part of the Beta 1 release, Entity Framework 6 has added support for mass inserts and deletes using the new DbSet AddRange and RemoveRange methods. These methods accept an IEnumerable and are processed when SaveChanges is called. Another DbSet methods, FindAsync was also added.

Adding these methods caused a design problem for the Entity Framework team. In order to make DbSet testable they had included a matching interface called IDbSet. In theory any mocks would implement this interface and all would be well. Unfortunately adding new methods to abstract interfaces is a breaking change, so what do you do?

Some of the ideas considered by the Entity Framework team included:

  • Make the breaking change. This is the route that Sun choose when it added new method to the JDBC interfaces in Java 7.
  • Make DbSet “more mockable”. In this context that means giving it a protected constructor and marking its methods as virtual. If the protected constructor is used, all the methods are treated as no-ops unless overridden. IDbSet could be marked as obsolete, as it would nothing over the real DbSet.
  • Use extension methods with delegation. If a real DbSet is available the extension method will forward the call to it. If only an IDbSet is available, reflection will be used to locate a matching method to invoke. Needless to say, this is going to make tests slower and static type safety will be lost.
  • Create a new interface called IDbSet2. (And in the future IDbSet3, IDbSet4, etc.)

The decision was recorded in the May 16 design meeting notes,

The decision was to make DbSet more mockable. However, we will not obsolete IDbSet because this would create work for those currently using IDbSet who don’t need to use the new members. We will add guidance to IDbSet indicating that using DbSet is the way to go for new code and, depending on feedback, we may choose to obsolete IDbSet in a future release.

In you are interested in the history of other design decisions made in Entity Framework, the design meeting notes are available as far back as May 31, 2012.

Rate this Article

Adoption
Style

This content is in the Microsoft topic

Related Topics:

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Community comments

  • Abstract Interfaces?!

    by Paulo Pinto,

    • Abstract Interfaces?!

      by Paulo Pinto,

      Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

      Since when does .NET offer such a concept?

      Back to top
    • Re: Abstract Interfaces?!

      by Jonathan Allen,

      Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

      You are defining an abstract interface whenever you use the 'interface' keyword.

      Over the years that keyword has led to a lot of confusion amongst C# and Java developers. They often forget that objects tend to have many interfaces. You've got the "public interface", which consists of all of the public members. Add to that the public interface of each base class working your way back to object. This can be a really important distinction when dealing with shadowed members.

      There may also be a "protected interface", which is the public interface plus the members only available to subclasses. And of course the "internal interface" for .NET or the "package private interface" for Java.

      When you hear expressions like "Program to the interface, not the implementation" they weren't talking about the interface keyword. What they were saying was that you should create functions to manipulate the data structure instead of directly mucking with internal memory using pointer offsets.

      Back to top
    • Re: Abstract Interfaces?!

      by Paulo Pinto,

      Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

      I have been using OO languages since early 90's and that is the first time I ever heard such term, hence my question.

      Back to top
    • Re: Abstract Interfaces?!

      by Jonathan Allen,

      Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

      It doesn't come up very often because usually the context of the conversation is enough to tell what is intended. I rarely use the term "abstract interface" except in formal writing.

      That may change now that we are seeing testing frameworks that can mock public interfaces such as Microsoft Fakes.

      Back to top
    • Generate interfaces for entity framework

      by thang duong,

      Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

      Alternatively, you can download my project on Codeplex. I have a working example that you can copy.
      entityinterfacegenerator.codeplex.com/

      Then you can use mocks and stubs in your unit tests.

      Back to top

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

BT