How do you save a Linq object if you don't have its data context?

Question

I have a Linq object, and I want to make changes to it and save it, like so:

public void DoSomething(MyClass obj) {
  obj.MyProperty = "Changed!";
  MyDataContext dc = new MyDataContext();
  dc.GetTable<MyClass>().Attach(dc, true); // throws exception
  dc.SubmitChanges();
}

The exception is:

System.InvalidOperationException: An entity can only be attached as modified without original state if it declares a version member or does not have an update check policy.

It looks like I have a few choices:

1. put a version member on every one of my Linq classes & tables (100+) that I need to use in this way.
2. find the data context that originally created the object and use that to submit changes.
3. implement OnLoaded in every class and save a copy of this object that I can pass to Attach() as the baseline object.
4. To hell with concurrency checking; load the DB version just before attaching and use that as the baseline object (NOT!!!)

Option (2) seems the most elegant method, particularly if I can find a way of storing a reference to the data context when the object is created. But - how?

Any other ideas?

EDIT

I tried to follow Jason Punyon's advice and create a concurrency field on on table as a test case. I set all the right properties (Time Stamp = true etc.) on the field in the dbml file, and I now have a concurrency field... and a different error:

System.NotSupportedException: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext.  This is not supported.

So what the heck am I supposed to attach, then, if not an existing entity? If I wanted a new record, I would do an InsertOnSubmit()! So how are you supposed to use Attach()?

Edit - FULL DISCLOSURE

OK, I can see it's time for full disclosure of why all the standard patterns aren't working for me.

I have been trying to be clever and make my interfaces much cleaner by hiding the DataContext from the "consumer" developers. This I have done by creating a base class

public class LinqedTable<T> where T : LinqedTable<T> {
  ...
}

... and every single one of my tables has the "other half" of its generated version declared like so:

public partial class MyClass : LinqedTable<MyClass> {
}

Now LinqedTable has a bunch of utility methods, most particularly things like:

public static T Get(long ID) {
  // code to load the record with the given ID
  // so you can write things like:
  //   MyClass obj = MyClass.Get(myID);
  // instead of:
  //   MyClass obj = myDataContext.GetTable<MyClass>().Where(o => o.ID == myID).SingleOrDefault();
}
public static Table<T> GetTable() {
  // so you can write queries like:
  //   var q = MyClass.GetTable();
  // instead of:
  //   var q = myDataContext.GetTable<MyClass>();
}

Of course, as you can imagine, this means that LinqedTable must somehow be able to have access to a DataContext. Up until recently I was achieving this by caching the DataContext in a static context. Yes, "up until recently", because that "recently" is when I discovered that you're not really supposed to hang on to a DataContext for longer than a unit of work, otherwise all sorts of gremlins start coming out of the woodwork. Lesson learned.

So now I know that I can't hang on to that data context for too long... which is why I started experimenting with creating a DataContext on demand, cached only on the current LinqedTable instance. This then led to the problem where the newly created DataContext wants nothing to do with my object, because it "knows" that it's being unfaithful to the DataContext that created it.

Is there any way of pushing the DataContext info onto the LinqedTable at the time of creation or loading?

This really is a poser. I definitely do not want to compromise on all these convenience functions I've put into the LinqedTable base class, and I need to be able to let go of the DataContext when necessary and hang on to it while it's still needed.

Any other ideas?

Answer 1

I think 2 is not the best option. It's sounding like you're going to create a single DataContext and keep it alive for the entire lifetime of your program which is a bad idea. DataContexts are lightweight objects meant to be spun up when you need them. Trying to keep the references around is also probably going to tightly couple areas of your program you'd rather keep separate.

Running a hundred ALTER TABLE statements one time, regenerating the context and keeping the architecture simple and decoupled is the elegant answer...

Answer 2

find the data context that originally created the object and use that to submit changes

Where did your datacontext go? Why is it so hard to find? You're only using one at any given time right?

So what the heck am I supposed to attach, then, if not an existing entity? If I wanted a new record, I would do an InsertOnSubmit()! So how are you supposed to use Attach()?

You're supposed to attach an instance that represents an existing record... but was not loaded by another datacontext - can't have two contexts tracking record state on the same instance. If you produce a new instance (ie. clone) you'll be good to go.

You might want to check out this article and its concurrency patterns for update and delete section.

Answer 3

Updating with LINQ to SQL is, um, interesting.

If the data context is gone (which in most situations, it should be), then you will need to get a new data context, and run a query to retrieve the object you want to update. It's an absolute rule in LINQ to SQL that you must retrieve an object to delete it, and it's just about as iron-clad that you should retrieve an object to update it as well. There are workarounds, but they are ugly and generally have lots more ways to get you in trouble. So just go get the record again and be done with it.

Once you have the re-fetched object, then update it with the content of your existing object that has the changes. Then do a SubmitChanges() on the new data context. That's it! LINQ to SQL will generate a fairly heavy-handed version of optimistic concurrency by comparing every value in the record to the original (in the re-fetched) record. If any value changed while you had the data, LINQ to SQL will throw a concurrency exception. (So you don't need to go altering all your tables for versioning or timestamps.)

If you have any questions about the generated update statements, you'll have to break out SQL Profiler and watch the updates go to the database. Which is actually a good idea, until you get confidence in the generated SQL.

One last note on transactions - the data context will generate a transaction for each SubmitChanges() call, if there is no ambient transaction. If you have several items to update and want to run them as one transaction, make sure you use the same data context for all of them, and wait to call SubmitChanges() until you've updated all the object contents.

If that approach to transactions isn't feasible, then look up the TransactionScope object. It will be your friend.

Answer 4

You can reattach to a new DataContext. The only thing that prevents you from doing so under normal circumstances is the property changed event registrations that occur within the EntitySet<T> and EntityRef<T> classes. To allow the entity to be transferred between contexts, you first have to detach the entity from the DataContext, by removing these event registrations, and then later on reattach to the new context by using the DataContext.Attach() method.

Here's a good example.

Answer 5

The "An entity can only be attached as modified without original state if it declares a version member" error when attaching an entitity that has a timestamp member will (should) only occur if the entity has not travelled 'over the wire' (read: been serialized and deserialized again). If you're testing with a local test app that is not using WCF or something else that will result in the entities being serialized and deserialized then they will still keep references to the original datacontext through entitysets/entityrefs (associations/nav. properties).

If this is the case, you can work around it by serializing and deserializing it locally before calling the datacontext's .Attach method. E.g.:

internal static T CloneEntity<T>(T originalEntity)
{
    Type entityType = typeof(T);

    DataContractSerializer ser =
        new DataContractSerializer(entityType);

    using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream())
    {
        ser.WriteObject(ms, originalEntity);
        ms.Position = 0;
        return (T)ser.ReadObject(ms);
    }
}

Alternatively you can detach it by setting all entitysets/entityrefs to null, but that is more error prone so although a bit more expensive I just use the DataContractSerializer method above whenever I want to simulate n-tier behavior locally...

(related thread: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/linqtosql/thread/eeeee9ae-fafb-4627-aa2e-e30570f637ba )

Answer 6

When you retrieve the data in the first place, turn off object tracking on the context that does the retrieval. This will prevent the object state from being tracked on the original context. Then, when it's time to save the values, attach to the new context, refresh to set the original values on the object from the database, and then submit changes. The following worked for me when I tested it.

MyClass obj = null;
using (DataContext context = new DataContext())
{
    context.ObjectTrackingEnabled = false;
    obj = (from p in context.MyClasses
            where p.ID == someId
            select p).FirstOrDefault();
}

obj.Name += "test";

using (DataContext context2 = new ())
{
    context2.MyClasses.Attach(obj);
    context2.Refresh(System.Data.Linq.RefreshMode.KeepCurrentValues, obj);
    context2.SubmitChanges();
}