asp.net - Are Multiple DataContext classes ever appropriate?

Question

In order to fully use LinqToSql in an ASP.net 3.5 application, it is necessary to create DataContext classes (which is usually done using the designer in VS 2008). From the UI perspective, the DataContext is a design of the sections of your database that you would like to expose to through LinqToSql and is integral in setting up the ORM features of LinqToSql.

My question is: I am setting up a project that uses a large database where all tables are interconnected in some way through Foreign Keys. My first inclination is to make one huge DataContext class that models the entire database. That way I could in theory (though I don't know if this would be needed in practice) use the Foreign Key connections that are generated through LinqToSql to easily go between related objects in my code, insert related objects, etc.

However, after giving it some thought, I am now thinking that it may make more sense to create multiple DataContext classes, each one relating to a specific namespace or logical interrelated section within my database. My main concern is that instantiating and disposing one huge DataContext class all the time for individual operations that relate to specific areas of the Database would be impose an unnecessary imposition on application resources. Additionally, it is easier to create and manage smaller DataContext files than one big one. The thing that I would lose is that there would be some distant sections of the database that would not be navigable through LinqToSql (even though a chain of relationships connects them in the actual database). Additionally, there would be some table classes that would exist in more than one DataContext.

Any thoughts or experience on whether multiple DataContexts (corresponding to DB namespaces) are appropriate in place of (or in addition to) one very large DataContext class (corresponding to the whole DB)?

Answer 1

I disagree with John's answer. The DataContext (or Linq to Entities ObjectContext) is more of a "unit of work" than a connection. It manages change tracking, etc. See this blog post for a description:

Lifetime of a LINQ to SQL DataContext

The four main points of this blog post are that DataContext:

1. Is ideally suited for a "unit of work" approach
2. Is also designed for "stateless" server operation
3. Is not designed for Long-lived usage

4. Should be used very carefully after
   any SumbitChanges() operation.
   

Considering that, I don't think using more than one DataContext would do any harm- in fact, creating different DataContexts for different types of work would help make your LinqToSql impelmentation more usuable and organized. The only downside is you wouldn't be able to use sqlmetal to auto-generate your dmbl.