Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 9095743
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 16, 20262026-06-16T23:40:54+00:00 2026-06-16T23:40:54+00:00

public interface IUnitOfWork { void Save(); } Assuming we plan to only ever switch

  • 0
public interface IUnitOfWork
{        
    void Save();
}

Assuming we plan to only ever switch between different O/RMs ( access to these O/RMs is encapsulated using Repository pattern ), which already provide their own implementations of a Unit of Work pattern, are there any reasons why we shouldn’t use TransactionScope approach instead of IUnitOfWork?

Thank you

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-16T23:40:55+00:00Added an answer on June 16, 2026 at 11:40 pm

    The implementation of your IUnitOfWork can use whatever technological means of “transactionalizing” the changes between different aggregates at one time that you wish, be it TransactionScope, SqlTransaction, or whatever means you choose to use. This does not negate the need for IUnitOfWork though.

    Repositories are designed for a specific aggregate. If you are only persisting changes to a single aggregate type at a time, then you may use only the repository. But, if you are persisting different aggregates at the same time and need that persistence to be “transactionalized” so that the changes are persisted all or nothing, then this is where the Unit of Work pattern comes into play.

    Per your example, we’ll say you are using Linq as your OR/M and you’re persisting your aggregates to a SQL data store, but want to wrap the persistence into a TransactionScope. You may have an IUnitOfWork definition like so:

    public interface IUnitOfWork 
    {
      void MarkDirty(IAggregateRoot entity);
      void MarkNew(IAggregateRoot entity);
      void MarkDeleted(IAggregateRoot entity);
      void Commit();
      void Rollback();
    }
    

    Then, your implementation may be like this:

    public LinqTransactionScopeUnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
    {
        public void Commit()
        {
            using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
            {
                foreach (IAggregateRoot root in Changes)
                {
                    //Save root based on how it was marked and what it's concrete type is using Linq.
                }
    
                scope.Complete();
            }
        }
    }
    

    The main idea here is that TransactionScope is one way of implementing IUnitOfWork, but having the Unit of Work contract allows you to provide different implementations based on your environment.

    Hope this helps!

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

public interface ITest { void Somethink(); } public class Test1 : ITest { public
Given: public interface IBatchProcess { void Run(); } and multiple implementation of: public class
I have interface Foo public interface Foo { public void test(); } Class FooChild
I have two files: public interface PrintService { void print(PrintDetails details); class PrintDetails {
public interface DownloadListener { public void onDownloaded(); } public class DownloadManager { private static
public interface Person { String getName(); void setName(String name); List<PersonFriend> getFriends(); } public interface
Given the following code: public interface Selectable { public void select(); } public class
I have a DbContext that is implented IUnitOfWork as below public interface IUnitOfWork {
I got the IUnitOfWork interface (with its implementation which I wont show you): public
public interface IMouseTraits { void ForceCursor(Cursor cursor); void SetCursor(Cursor cursor); } 1) How do

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.