Entity Framework Code First convention over configuration should be the other way around
Why has MS decided to use convention over configuration.

I deal with very large projects and not all projects are data centric. In fact, even with data centric projects, my entity classes have a lot of custom functionality that needs to be persistence agnostic.

With the current MSM approach, I end up having to apply attributes to non-persistence properties instead of the other way around. Shouldn't that be the point of code-first? To use a working class hierarchy and turn it into persistence compatible as an 'addition'?

I understand that some conventions are very useful such as the naming of Identity or primary key properties and foreign keys. But honestly, tell me how many developers would use code-first instead of model-first if they did NOT already have a class structure???
Entity Framework Code First convention over configuration should be the other way around
===

Why has MS decided to use convention over configuration.

I deal with very large projects and not all projects are data centric. In fact, even with data centric projects, my entity classes have a lot of custom functionality that needs to be persistence agnostic.

With the current MSM approach, I end up having to apply attributes to non-persistence properties instead of the other way around. Shouldn't that be the point of code-first? To use a working class hierarchy and turn it into persistence compatible as an 'addition'?

I understand that some conventions are very useful such as the naming of Identity or primary key properties and foreign keys. But honestly, tell me how many developers would use code-first instead of model-first if they did NOT already have a class structure???