I am investigating the use of an ORM to access our DataVault. Until now, PetaPoco looks most promising, but I am not bound to that one.
Most of the object we identify are embedded in a combination of a Hub and a Sat where the Hub contains the BusinessKey and the Sat the additional information. In a poco it would look like this (simplified):
// hub: H_Client
// sat: HS_Client
class Client
{
public string ClientId_BK { get; set; } // BusinessKey in the Hub
public long H_Client_SeqId { get; set; } // PK/Identity in Hub, FK in the Sat
public string? Address { get; set; } // additional attr. in the Sat
public string? Phone { get; set; } // additional attr. in the Sat
/* and a lot more attributes */
}
So, whenever we talk about a Client, it always involves the combination of a Hub with its Sat.
Usually an ORM interfaces one table at a time, but that is not very useful with datavaults: you always want to query or insert a Hub with the applicable Sat.
Is it possible to update or insert into multiple tables from one poco?
It's trivial to retrieve the info using a ResultColumn, but for insert/update, you will need to add your own logic (Insert in both tables with a Transaction, etc).
Remember that this kind of small, performant ORMs are meant to be simple.
I'm building an app using code first and generating the DB.
I can no longer modify the DB so, I can't add/change columns and tables. But the Domain Model (not sure if I'm using the term correctly) requires new properties (that are part of the domain) that can be inferred from the database data, but do not exist explicitly.
My database stores sales info for houses. So I have two tables, Houses and Sales. The tables are related by houseID. Now I want houses to have a property called LastSaleDate, but I can't change the underlying database.
So, How would I properly construct this new property and add it into the appropriate layer? Here is what my poco/entities look like. Just pseudo coded...
[I am trying to learn all I can about the tools and methods I use. I may be completely wrong on all my assumptions and maybe I am to add it to my pocos. If that is the case please explain how that would work]
[Table("HOUSE_TABLE")]
public class house {
//some properties
public int HouseID {get;set;}
}
[Table("SALE_TABLE")
public class sale {
//some properties
public int HouseID {get;set;
public int SaleID {get;set;}
public datetime SaleDate {get;set;}
public virtual House House {get;set;}
}
I almost feel like this would create 2 levels of mapping. Though, I don't believe I've ever seen this done in any code I've seen online.
poco -> AutoMapper?? -> entities -> Automapper -> viewModels
This logic most likely belongs on the Entity. Entities should have both data and behaviour. What you seem to be describing is some behaviour that is exposed as a property. So, you should add a property for the derived value to your entity. By default, if the property only has a getter, then EF will not try to map the value to the database.
For example:
[Table("HOUSE_TABLE")]
public class house
{
//some properties
public int HouseID {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<Sale> Sales { get; set; }
public DateTime LastSaleDate
{
get
{
return this.Sales.OrderByDescending(s => s.SaleDate).First();
}
}
}
After watching NDC12 presentation "Crafting Wicked Domain Models" from Jimmy Bogard (http://ndcoslo.oktaset.com/Agenda), I was wandering how to persist that kind of domain model.
This is sample class from presentation:
public class Member
{
List<Offer> _offers;
public Member(string firstName, string lastName)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
_offers = new List<Offer>();
}
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Offer> AssignedOffers {
get { return _offers; }
}
public int NumberOfOffers { get; private set; }
public Offer AssignOffer(OfferType offerType, IOfferValueCalc valueCalc)
{
var value = valueCalc.CalculateValue(this, offerType);
var expiration = offerType.CalculateExpiration();
var offer = new Offer(this, offerType, expiration, value);
_offers.Add(offer);
NumberOfOffers++;
return offer;
}
}
so there are some rules contained in this domain model:
- Member must have first and last name
- Number of offers can't be changed outside
- Member is responsible for creating new offer, calculating its value and assignment
If if try to map this to some ORM like Entity Framework or NHibernate, it will not work.
So, what's best approach for mapping this kind of model to database with ORM?
For example, how do I load AssignedOffers from DB if there's no setter?
Only thing that does make sense for me is using command/query architecture: queries are always done with DTO as result, not domain entities, and commands are done on domain models. Also, event sourcing is perfect fit for behaviours on domain model. But this kind of CQS architecture isn't maybe suitable for every project, specially brownfield. Or not?
I'm aware of similar questions here, but couldn't find concrete example and solution.
This is actually a very good question and something I have contemplated. It is potentially difficult to create proper domain objects that are fully encapsulated (i.e. no property setters) and use an ORM to build the domain objects directly.
In my experience there are 3 ways of solving this issue:
As already mention by Luka, NHibernate supports mapping to private fields, rather than property setters.
If using EF (which I don't think supports the above) you could use the memento pattern to restore state to your domain objects. e.g. you use entity framework to populate 'memento' objects which your domain entities accept to set their private fields.
As you have pointed out, using CQRS with event sourcing eliminates this problem. This is my preferred method of crafting perfectly encapsulated domain objects, that also have all the added benefits of event sourcing.
Old thread. But there's a more recent post (late 2014) by Vaughn Vernon that addresses just this scenario, with particular reference to Entity Framework. Given that I somehow struggled to find such information, maybe it can be helpful to post it here as well.
Basically the post advocates for the Product domain (aggregate) object to wrap the ProductState EF POCO data object for what concerns the "data bag" side of things. Of course the domain object would still add all its rich domain behaviour through domain-specific methods/accessors, but it would resort to inner data object when it has to get/set its properties.
Copying snippet straight from post:
public class Product
{
public Product(
TenantId tenantId,
ProductId productId,
ProductOwnerId productOwnerId,
string name,
string description)
{
State = new ProductState();
State.ProductKey = tenantId.Id + ":" + productId.Id;
State.ProductOwnerId = productOwnerId;
State.Name = name;
State.Description = description;
State.BacklogItems = new List<ProductBacklogItem>();
}
internal Product(ProductState state)
{
State = state;
}
//...
private readonly ProductState State;
}
public class ProductState
{
[Key]
public string ProductKey { get; set; }
public ProductOwnerId ProductOwnerId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public List<ProductBacklogItemState> BacklogItems { get; set; }
...
}
Repository would use internal constructor in order to instantiate (load) an entity instance from its DB-persisted version.
The one bit I can add myself, is that probably Product domain object should be dirtied with one more accessor just for the purpose of persistence through EF: in the same was as new Product(productState) allows a domain entity to be loaded from database, the opposite way should be allowed through something like:
public class Product
{
// ...
internal ProductState State
{
get
{
// return this.State as is, if you trust the caller (repository),
// or deep clone it and return it
}
}
}
// inside repository.Add(Product product):
dbContext.Add(product.State);
For AssignedOffers : if you look at the code you'll see that AssignedOffers returns value from a field. NHibernate can populate that field like this: Map(x => x.AssignedOffers).Access.Field().
Agree with using CQS.
When doing DDD first thing, you ignore the persistence concerns. THe ORM is tighlty coupled to a RDBMS so it's a persistence concern.
An ORM models persistence structure NOT the domain. Basically the repository must 'convert' the received Aggregate Root to one or many persistence entities. The Bounded Context matters a lot since the Aggregate Root changes according to what are you trying to accomplish as well.
Let's say you want to save the Member in the context of a new offer assigned. Then you'll have something like this (of course this is only one possible scenario)
public interface IAssignOffer
{
int OwnerId {get;}
Offer AssignOffer(OfferType offerType, IOfferValueCalc valueCalc);
IEnumerable<Offer> NewOffers {get; }
}
public class Member:IAssignOffer
{
/* implementation */
}
public interface IDomainRepository
{
void Save(IAssignOffer member);
}
Next the repo will get only the data required in order to change the NH entities and that's all.
About EVent Sourcing, I think that you have to see if it fits your domain and I don't see any problem with using Event Sourcing only for storing domain Aggregate Roots while the rest (mainly infrastructure) can be stored in the ordinary way (relational tables). I think CQRS gives you great flexibility in this matter.
I'm having problems setting up an Entity Framework 4 model.
A Contact object is exposed in the database as an updateable view. Also due to the history of the database, this Contact view has two different keys, one from a legacy system. So some other tables reference a contact with a 'ContactID' while other older tables reference it with a 'LegacyContactID'.
Since this is a view, there are no foreign keys in the database, and I'm trying to manually add associations in the designer. But the fluent associations don't seem to provide a way of specifying which field is referenced.
How do I build this model?
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).???
//is there some way to say which key field this reference is referencing?
}
EDIT 2: "New things have come to light, man" - His Dudeness
After a but more experimentation and news, I found using a base class and child classes with different keys will not work by itself. With code first especially, base entities must define a key if they are not explicitly mapped to tables.
I left the suggested code below because I still recommend using the base class for your C# manageability, but I below the code I have updated my answer and provided other workaround options.
Unfortunately, the truth revealed is that you cannot accomplish what you seek without altering SQL due to limitations on EF 4.1+ code first.
Base Contact Class
public abstract class BaseContact
{
// Include all properties here except for the keys
// public string Name { get; set; }
}
Entity Classes
Set this up via the fluent API if you like, but for easy illustration I've used the data annotations
public class Contact : BaseContact
{
[Key]
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class LegacyContact : BaseContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
[Key]
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
Using the Entities
Classes that reference or manipulate the contact objects should reference the base class much like an interface:
public class SomeCustomObject
{
public BaseContact Contact { get; set; }
}
If later you need to programmatically determine what type you are working with use typeof() and manipulate the entity accordingly.
var co = new SomeCustomObject(); // assume its loaded with data
if(co.Contact == typeof(LegacyContact)
// manipulate accordingly.
New Options & Workarounds
As I suggested in comment before, you won't be able to map them to a single view/table anyway so you have a couple options:
a. map your objects to their underlying tables and alter your "get/read" methods on repositories and service classes pull from the joined view -or-
b. create a second view and map each object to their appropriate view.
c. map one entity to its underlying table and one to the view.
Summary
Try (B) first, creating a separate view because it requires the least amount of change to both code and DB schema (you aren't fiddling with underlying tables, or affecting stored procedures). It also ensures your EF C# POCOs will function equivalently (one to a view and one to table may cause quirks). Miguel's answer below seems to be roughly the same suggestion so I would start here if it's possible.
Option (C) seems worst because your POCO entities may behave have unforseen quirks when mapped to different SQL pieces (tables vs. views) causing coding issues down the road.
Option (A), while it fits EF's intention best (entities mapped to tables), it means to get your joined view you must alter your C# services/repositories to work with the EF entities for Add, Update, Delete operations, but tell the Pull/Read-like methods to grab data from the joint views. This is probably your best choice, but involves more work than (B) and may also affect Schema in the long run. More complexity equals more risk.
Edit I'm not sure this is actually possible, and this is why:
The assumption is that a foreign key references a primary key. What you've got is two fields which are both acting as primary keys of vwContact, but depending on which object you ask it's a different field that's the primary key. You can only have one primary key at once, and although you can have a compound primary key you can't do primary key things with only half of it - you have to have a compound foreign key with which to reference it.
This is why Entity Framework doesn't have a way to specify the mapping column on the target side, because it has to use the primary key.
Now, you can layer some more objects on top of the EF entities to do some manual lookup and simulate the navigation properties, but I don't think you can actually get EF to do what you want because SQL itself won't do what you want - the rule is one primary key per table, and it's not negotiable.
From what you said about your database structure, it may be possible for you to write a migration script which can give the contact entities a consistent primary key and update everything else to refer to them with that single primary key rather than the two systems resulting from the legacy data, as you can of course do joins on any fields you like. I don't think you're going to get a seamlessly functional EF model without changing your database though.
Original Answer That Won't Work
So, vwContact contains a key KeyField which is referenced by many SomeObjects and another key LegacyKeyField which is referenced by many LegacyObjects.
I think this is how you have to approach this:
Give vwContact navigation properties for SomeObject and LegacyObject collections:
public virtual ICollection<SomeObject> SomeObjects { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<LegacyObject> LegacyObjects { get; set; }
Give those navigation properties foreign keys to use:
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.SomeObjects)
.WithRequired(s => s.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.LegacyObjects)
.WithRequired(l => l.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.LegacyKeyField);
The trouble is I would guess you've already tried this and it didn't work, in which case I can't offer you much else as I've not done a huge amount of this kind of thing (our database is much closer to the kinds of thing EF expects so we've had to do relatively minimal mapping overrides, usually with many-to-many relationships).
As for your two calls to HasKey on vwContact, they can't both be the definitive key for the object, so it's either a compound key which features both of them, or pick one, or there's another field you haven't mentioned which is the real primary key. From here it's not really possible to say what the right option there is.
You should be able to do this with two different objects to represent the Contact view.
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class vwLegacyContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwLegacyContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwLegacyContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwLegacyContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
// The rest of your configuration
}
I have tried everything that you can imagine, and found that most solutions won't work in this version of EF... maybe in future versions it supports referencing another entity by using an unique field, but this is not the case now. I also found two solutions that work, but they are more of a workaround than solutions.
I tried all of the following things, that didn't work:
Mapping two entities to the same table: this is not allowed in EF4.
Inheriting from a base that has no key definitions: all root classes must have keys, so that inherited classes share this common key... that is how inheritance works in EF4.
Inheriting from base class that defines all fields, including keys, and then use modelBuilder to tell wich base-properties are keys of the derived types: this doesn't work, because the methos HasKey, Property and others that take members as parameters, must reference members of the class itself... referencing properties of a base class is not allowed. This cannot be done: modelBuilder.HasKey<MyClass>(x => x.BaseKeyField)
The two things that I did that worked:
Without DB changes: Map to the table that is source of the view in question... that is, if vwContact is a view to Contacts table, then you can map a class to Contacts, and use it by setting the key to the KeyField, and another class mapping to the vwContacts view, with the key being LegacyKeyField. In the class Contacts, the LegacyKeyField must exist, and you will have to manage this manually, when using the Contacts class. Also, when using the class vwContacts you will have to manually manage the KeyField, unless it is an autoincrement field in the DB, in this case, you must remove the property from vwContacts class.
Changing DB: Create another view, just like the vwContacts, say vwContactsLegacy, and map it to a class in wich the key is the LegacyKeyField, and map vwContacts to the original view, using KeyField as the key. All limitations from the first case also applies: the vwContacts must have the LegacyKeyField, managed manually. And the vwContactsLegacy, must have the KetField if it is not autoincrement idenitity, otherwise it must not be defined.
There are some limitations:
As I said, these solutions are work-arounds... not real solutions, there are some serious implications, that may even make them undesirable:
EF does not know that you are mapping two classes to the same thing. So when you update one thing, the other one could be changed or not, it depends if the objects is cached or not. Also, you could have two objects at the same time, that represents the same thing on the backing storage, so say you load a vwContact and also a vwContactLegacy, changes both, and then try to save both... you will have to care about this yourself.
You will have to manage one of the keys manually. If you are using vwContacts class, the KeyFieldLegacy is there, and you must fill it. If you want to create a vwContacts, and associate is with a LegacyObject, then you need to create the reference manually, because LegacyObject takes a vwContactsLegacy, not a vwContacts... you will have to create the reference by setting the ContactId field.
I hope that this is more of a help than a disillusion, EF is a powerfull toy, but it is far from perfect... though I think it's going to get much better in the next versions.
I think this may be possible using extension methods, although not directly through EF as #Matthew Walton mentioned in his edit above.
However, with extension methods, you can specify what to do behind the scenes, and have a simple call to it.
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
public class LegacyObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this LegacyObject legacyObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in legacyObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.LegacyKeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
and
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class SomeObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this SomeObject someObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in someObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.KeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
Then to use you can simply do like this:
var legacyContacts = legacyObject.Contacts();
var someContacts = someObject.Contacts();
Sometimes it makes more sense to map it from the other end of the relationship, in your case:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.LegacyKeyField);
however this will require that u.LegacyKeyField is marked as a primary key.
And then I'll give my two cents:
if the Legacy db is using LegacyKeyField, then perhaps the legacy db will be read only. In this case we can create two separate contexts Legacy and Non-legacy and map them accordingly. This can potentially become a bit messy as you'd have to remember which object comes from which context. But then again, nothing stops you from adding the same EF code first object into 2 different contexts
Another solution is to use views with ContactId added for all other legacy tables and map them into one context. This will tax performance for the sake of having cleaner context objects, but this can be counteracted on sql side: indexed views, materialized views, stored procs, etc. So than LEGACY_OBJECT becomes VW_LEGACY OBJECT with CONTACT.ContactId brought over, then:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().ToTable("VW_LEGACY_OBJECT");
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.ContactId);
I personally would go with creating "mapper views" with CustomerId on legacy tables, as it's cleaner from c# layer perspective and you can make those views look like real tables. It is also difficult to suggest a solution without knowing what exactly is the scenario that you have a problem with: querying, loading, saving, etc.
First off, I think this is somewhat ridiculous to do but the other members of my team insist upon it and I can't come up with a good argument against it other than "I think it's dumb"...
What we're trying to do is create a completely abstract data layer and then have various implementations of that data layer. Simple enough, right? Enter Entity Framework 4.1...
Our end goal here is that the programmers (I do my best to stay only on the data layer) never want to have to be exposed to the concrete classes. They only ever want to have to use interfaces in their code, aside from obviously needing to instantiate the factory.
I want to achieve something like the following:
First we have our "Common" library of all of the interfaces, we'll call it "Common.Data":
public interface IEntity
{
int ID { get; set; }
}
public interface IUser : IEntity
{
int AccountID { get; set; }
string Username { get; set; }
string EmailAddress { get; set; }
IAccount Account { get; set; }
}
public interface IAccount : IEntity
{
string FirstName { get; set; }
string LastName { get; set; }
DbSet<IUser> Users { get; set; } // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
}
public interface IEntityFactory
{
DbSet<IUser> Users { get; }
DbSet<IAccount> Accounts { get; }
}
From that we then have an implementation library, we'll call it "Something.Data.Imp":
internal class User : IUser
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Username { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public IAccount Account { get; set; }
public class Configuration : EntityTypeConfiguration<User>
{
public Configuration() : base()
{
...
}
}
}
internal class Account : IAccount
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public DbSet<IUser> Users { get; set; } // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
public class Configuration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Account>
{
public Configuration() : base()
{
...
}
}
}
Factory:
public class ImplEntityFactory : IEntityFactory
{
private ImplEntityFactory(string connectionString)
{
this.dataContext = new MyEfDbContext(connectionString);
}
private MyEfDbContext dataContext;
public static ImplEntityFactory Instance(string connectionString)
{
if(ImplEntityFactory._instance == null)
ImplEntityFactory._instance = new ImplEntityFactory(connectionString);
return ImplEntityFactory._instance;
}
private static ImplEntityFactory _instance;
public DbSet<IUser> Users // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
{
get { return dataContext.Users; }
}
public DbSet<IAccount> Accounts // OR IDbSet<IUser> OR [IDbSet implementation]?
{
get { return dataContext.Accounts; }
}
}
Context:
public class MyEfDataContext : DbContext
{
public MyEfDataContext(string connectionString)
: base(connectionString)
{
Database.SetInitializer<MyEfDataContext>(null);
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new User.Configuration());
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new Account.Configuration());
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<Account> Accounts { get; set; }
}
Then the front-end programmers would be using it such as:
public class UsingIt
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
IEntityFactory factory = new ImplEntityFactory("SQLConnectionString");
IUser user = factory.Users.Find(5);
IAccount usersAccount = user.Account;
IAccount account = factory.Accounts.Find(3);
Console.Write(account.Users.Count());
}
}
So that's pretty much it... I'm hoping someone on here might be able to either point me in the right direction or help me out with a good argument that I can fire back at the development team. I've looked at some other articles on this site about EF not being able to work with interfaces and one reply saying that you can't implement IDbSet (which I find kind of curious, why would they provide it if you couldn't implement it?) but so far to no avail.
Thanks in advance for any help!
J
The first argument is that EF doesn't work with interfaces. DbSet must be defined with a real entity implementation.
The second argument is that your entities should not contain DbSet - that is context related class and your entities should be pure of such dependency unless you are going to implement Active record pattern. Even in such case you will definitely not have access to DbSet of different entity in another entity. Even if you wrap set you are still too close to EF and entity never have property accessing all entities of another entity type (not only those related to current instance).
Just to make it clear DbSet in EF has very special meaning - it is not a collection. It is entry point to database (for example each LINQ query on DbSet hits database) and it is in normal scenarios not exposed on entities.
The third argument is that you are using a single context per application - you have a single private instance per singleton factory. Unless you are doing some single run batch application it is definitely wrong.
The last argument is simply practical. You are paid for delivering features not for wasting time on abstraction which doesn't give you (and your customer) any business value. It is not about proving why you should not create this abstraction. It is about proving why you should do it. What value will you get from using it? If your colleagues are not able to come with arguments which have business value you can simply go to your product manager and let him use his power - he holds the budget.
Generally abstraction is part of well designed object oriented application - that is correct. BUT:
Every abstraction will make your application somehow more complex and it will increase cost and time of development
Not every abstraction will make your application better or more maintainable - too much abstraction has reverse effect
Abstracting EF is hard. Saying that you will abstract data access in the way that you can replace it with another implementation is task for data access gurus. First of all you must have very good experience with many data access technologies to be able to define such abstraction which will work with all of them (and in the end you can only tell that your abstraction works with technologies you thought about when you design that). Your abstraction will work only with EF DbContext API and with nothing else because it is not an abstraction. If you want to build universal abstraction you should start studying Repository pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Specification pattern - but that is a big deal of work to make them and to implement them universal. The first step needed is to hide everything related to data access behind that abstraction - including LINQ!
Abstracting data access to support multiple APIs make sense only if you need it now. If you only think that it can be useful in future than it is in business driven projects completely wrong decision and developer who came with that idea is not competent to make business targeting decisions.
When it make sense to do "a lot of" abstraction?
You have such requirement now - that moves burden of such decision to person responsible for budget / project scope / requirements etc.
You need abstraction now to simplify design or solve some a problem
You are doing open source or hobby project and you are not driven by business needs but by purity and quality of your project
You are working on platform (long living retail product which will live for a long time) or public framework - this generally returns to the first point because this type of products usually have such abstraction as requirement
If you are working only targeted application (mostly single purpose applications on demand or outsourced solutions) the abstraction should be used only if necessary. These applications are driven by costs - the target is delivering working solution for minimal costs and in the shortest time. This target must be achieved even if resulting application will not be very good internally - the only thing which matters is if application meets requirements. Any abstraction based on "what if ... happens" or "perhaps we will need ..." increases costs by virtual (non existing) requirements which will in 99% never happen and in most cases initial contract with customer didn't count which such additional costs.
Btw. this type of applications is targeted by MS APIs and designer strategy - MS will make a lot of designers and code generators which will create non optimal but cheap and quick solutions which can be created by people with smaller skill set and are very cheap. The last example is LightSwitch.