Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
326 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c# - Entity Framework 4.1 InverseProperty Attribute

Just wanted to know more about RelatedTo attribute and I found out it has been replaced by ForeignKey and InverseProperty attributes in EF 4.1 RC.

Does anyone know any useful resources about the scenarios that this attribute becomes useful?

Should I use this attribute on navigation properties? example:

public class Book
{
  public int ID {get; set;}
  public string Title {get; set;}

  [ForeignKey("FK_AuthorID")]
  public Author Author {get; set;}
}  

public class Author
{
  public int ID {get; set;}
  public string Name {get; set;}
  // Should I use InverseProperty on the following property?
  public virtual ICollection<Book> Books {get; set;}
}
See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

I add an example for the InversePropertyAttribute. It cannot only be used for relationships in self referencing entities (as in the example linked in Ladislav's answer) but also in the "normal" case of relationships between different entities:

public class Book
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Title {get; set;}

    [InverseProperty("Books")]
    public Author Author {get; set;}
}

public class Author
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Name {get; set;}

    [InverseProperty("Author")]
    public virtual ICollection<Book> Books {get; set;}
}

This would describe the same relationship as this Fluent Code:

modelBuilder.Entity<Book>()
            .HasOptional(b => b.Author)
            .WithMany(a => a.Books);

... or ...

modelBuilder.Entity<Author>()
            .HasMany(a => a.Books)
            .WithOptional(b => b.Author);

Now, adding the InverseProperty attribute in the example above is redundant: The mapping conventions would create the same single relationship anyway.

But consider this example (of a book library which only contains books written together by two authors):

public class Book
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Title {get; set;}

    public Author FirstAuthor {get; set;}
    public Author SecondAuthor {get; set;}
}

public class Author
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Name {get; set;}

    public virtual ICollection<Book> BooksAsFirstAuthor {get; set;}
    public virtual ICollection<Book> BooksAsSecondAuthor {get; set;}
}

The mapping conventions would not detect which ends of these relationships belong together and actually create four relationships (with four foreign keys in the Books table). In this situation using the InverseProperty would help to define the correct relationships we want in our model:

public class Book
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Title {get; set;}

    [InverseProperty("BooksAsFirstAuthor")]
    public Author FirstAuthor {get; set;}
    [InverseProperty("BooksAsSecondAuthor")]
    public Author SecondAuthor {get; set;}
}

public class Author
{
    public int ID {get; set;}
    public string Name {get; set;}

    [InverseProperty("FirstAuthor")]
    public virtual ICollection<Book> BooksAsFirstAuthor {get; set;}
    [InverseProperty("SecondAuthor")]
    public virtual ICollection<Book> BooksAsSecondAuthor {get; set;}
}

Here we would only get two relationships. (Note: The InverseProperty attribute is only necessary on one end of the relationship, we can omit the attribute on the other end.)


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...