存储库是否应该实现 IQueryable<T>? [英] Should repositories implement IQueryable&lt;T&gt;?

问题描述

我正在考虑两个 IRepository 接口之一，一个是 IQueryable 的后代，另一个包含 IQueryable.

I'm considering one of two IRepository interfaces, one that is a descendant of IQueryable and one that contains IQueryable.

像这样:

public interface IRepository<T> : IQueryable<T>
{
    T Save(T entity);
    void Delete(T entity);
}

或者这个:

public interface IRepository<T>
{
    T Save(T entity);
    void Delete(T entity);
    IQueryable<T> Query();
}

LINQ 用法为:

from dos
in ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IRepository<DomainObject>>()
where dos.Id == id
select dos

或者...

from dos
in ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IRepository<DomainObject>>().Query
where dos.Id == id
select dos

我有点喜欢第一个，但嘲笑它是有问题的.其他人如何实现 LINQable、可模拟的存储库?

I kinda like the first one, but it's problematic to mock. How have other people implemented LINQable, mockable repositories?

推荐答案

取决于你想要 Has-A 还是 Is-A 关系.

Depends on if you want a Has-A or an Is-A relationship.

第一个是 Is-A 关系.IRepository 接口是一个 IQueryable 接口.第二个是has-a.IRepository 有一个 IQueryable 接口.在写这篇文章的过程中，我实际上比第一个更喜欢第二个，因为当使用你的第二个 IRepository 时，我可以给 Query() 方法任何返回 IQueryable 的方法.对我来说，这比第一个实现更灵活.

The first one is an Is-A relationship. The IRepository interface is a IQueryable interface. The second is a has-a. The IRepository has an IQueryable interface. In the process of writing this, I actually like the second better then the first, simply because when use your second IRepository, I can give the Query() method ANYTHING that returns IQueryable. To me, that is more flexible then the first implementation.

这篇关于存储库是否应该实现 IQueryable<T>?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！