How to create a repository pattern without an ORM?
It is supposed to be an abstraction layer. You can easily place all of the data access calls into a partitioned assembly and keeps the SQL segregated from the application. If you don’t want to, making a direct SQL command would work as well, but I like to keep my data access per table.
Is it better to use or / m or repository pattern?
You just add complexity without getting any benefit over using the OR/M directly. Either implement Repository pattern correctly or just don’t use it at all. (If you really want to handle big entities you can combine the Repository pattern with the Specification pattern.
How to not use the generic repository pattern?
Actually we can replace this GenericRepository by e.g. DbSet and get pretty must the same results. The only service that IGenericRepository provides is that it hides most of the thirty methods that DbSet has. JONNY JUNIOR: Oh, indeed what you just said make sense. I guess using generic repository pattern here was a bit of overengineering.
Do you need an ORM for adorepository?
So now, our AdoRepository has almost the same interface as our Entity Framework FaqRepository, but it doesn’t require the heavy ORM and it doesn’t address writing data out to the database.
How to add populaterecord method to adorepository class?
With the AdoRepository class, we have to add one more method called PopulateRecord. This method receives a SqlDataReader and requires the creation and mapping of the fields to the object’s properties. Our OldFaqRepository will now look like this:
What is the point of using repository pattern?
What is the point of using repository pattern if you will require callers to send a sql command? It is supposed to be an abstraction layer. You can easily place all of the data access calls into a partitioned assembly and keeps the SQL segregated from the application.