Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for repository pattern for different databases? #1

Open
GlennArens opened this issue Oct 27, 2019 · 6 comments
Open

Add support for repository pattern for different databases? #1

GlennArens opened this issue Oct 27, 2019 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@GlennArens
Copy link

Hey,
Maybe there should be support for different database types with for example dapper with a generic repository pattern on top.

@GooRiOn
Copy link
Member

GooRiOn commented Oct 27, 2019

Good point! I think that we should extract abstractions for persistence first (something like Convey.Persistence) and then we will think about particular implementations for SQL/NoSQL databases.

@GooRiOn GooRiOn added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 27, 2019
@GooRiOn GooRiOn added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Nov 10, 2019
@millicandavid
Copy link

I know my group was interested in a CosmosDB and a SQL Server implementation. The CosmosDB implementation may not be necessary as the MongoDB adapter for it may work just fine. We haven't experimented with that yet though. I'll update here if we find that it does.

@dsoltesz
Copy link

Would like to see a Convey.Persistence.EFCoreDB

@GooRiOn
Copy link
Member

GooRiOn commented Jan 14, 2020

Ok, I will prioritize this one to extrat the IRepository<TEntity, TKey> to the separated package.

@Dryadepy
Copy link

Good point! I think that we should extract abstractions for persistence first (something like Convey.Persistence) and then we will think about particular implementations for SQL/NoSQL databases.

I'think its not necessary to make an abstractions for persistence as in fact will make it a bit hard to extend later (support for multiple nosql provides)

@frankely
Copy link

frankely commented Feb 5, 2020

Good point! I think that we should extract abstractions for persistence first (something like Convey.Persistence) and then we will think about particular implementations for SQL/NoSQL databases.

I'think its not necessary to make an abstractions for persistence as in fact will make it a bit hard to extend later (support for multiple nosql provides)

I think it would be more flexible to choose between a SQL or NoSQL concrete NuGet package since they both have different features and trying to abstract them will reduce flexibility.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants