I've found a work-around. It's a very obvious work-around that is non-ideal, but I think I'm going to call it good enough for us until EF5 comes out to fix this.
In our scenario, we're using a DB-first approach (we're rewriting a legacy app with minimal DB changes). Our DB contains hundreds of tables, so rather than using a single EDMX/Context, I'm using multiple EDMX/Contexts (the EDMX has croaked every time I've attempted to add more than half of our tables). However, some tables need to exist in more than one EDMX/Context.
For discussion, let's pretend we have a simple database with the following tables:
Person
Family
Relationship
Address
Business
Employee
Also, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that ANY table that exists in multiple contexts causes this problem (as I stated in comments to Devart's answer, this is not really true and I don't understand why it sometimes works).
Now let's say we want to create two contexts:
PersonalContext
:
Person
Family
Relationship
Address
WorkContext
:
Person
Business
Address
Employee
In this scenario, both Person
and Address
will cause our problem. So what we will do in our EDMX mapping is simply rename our entities to Person_Personal
/Person_Work
and Address_Personal
/Address_Work
.
As stated, this is very much an obvious work-around that is non-ideal but since EF doesn't take namespacing into account and goes strictly by name (not true identity, simply the name), one obvious way is to put your namespacing in your name.
Now I'm still debating if I'm going to do it that way or perhaps namespace the name for every entity (Personal_Person
, Personal_Family
, Personal_Relationship
, Personal_Address
and Work_Person
, Work_Business
, Work_Address
, and Work_Employee
) for both consistency and Intellisense-friendliness (keeping all entities in proper alphabetic order) since really, the namespace belongs before the name instead of after it, but that's a judgement call and not really important to providing a solution to the problem.
I hope this helps!!