Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

kfarmer — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:30:02 GMT

Thanks, Dinesh.. I needed that :)

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Kevin Daly — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:33:29 GMT

Personally I would have said "You don't, because ActiveRecord is an anti-pattern".

Then the Rails groupies would've lynched me, but what the Hell.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

jdobrien — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:19:56 GMT

I went to test the Entity Framwork. But when I tried 'using System.Panacea;' I got an error.

That's it, back to DataSets I go.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Skurmedel — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:42:03 GMT

I don't see the connection between LINQ and ActiveRecord, they are different entities and good at different things.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Scott Bellwre — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:56:19 GMT

Dinesh,

I think it would be valuable for you to have hands-on experience with the advantages of approaches that haven't made it past Microsoft's defenses yet so that we would have a shared basis for comparison.

Presently, I remain the only person in our on-going dialog stretching back to 2004 that has endeavored to understand the implications of both paradigms in question.

I welcome the opportunity to work with you on an application using contemporary approaches to software development so that we can enrich this conversation with shared understanding.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Dinesh.Kulkarni — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:55 GMT

Scott,

I hear you. I even regret not pushing testability into L2S DataContext with some sort of IContext so you don't have to do the clever contortions described in Matt's blog.

On my current project, we are experimenting significantly with many of the concepts and I am cautiously optimistic about making them more accessible to the mass developer audience. Specifically design for testability, MVC (VM) and domain object design.

I would love to get your (and other community influencers' feedback) for my current project. Once we have a few things worked out to discuss (and well before a beta). BTW, thank you personally for your continued engagement since ObjectSpaces days despite setbacks and shortcomings from our side.

Thanks all for your continued interest. Stick with us, it is going to get better despite my wacky postings.

Dinesh

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

kfarmer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:31:30 GMT

FWIW -- Adding an IContext for LINQ to SQL wouldn't be a breaking change, I would think. That said, I haven't had the need for such a thing.

I would, however, vote to see Matt's expression visitor base class added to the BCL and maintained as the Expression types expand.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Scott Bellware — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:45:53 GMT

Dinesh,

I will likely be on campus during the week of July 7th.

Would be very rewarding to hang out with you while I'm up there. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an ObjectSpaces reunion either.

-Scott

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Jim Wooley — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:03:54 GMT

Dinesh, I greatly appreciated this post. Although I did have a disagreement with some of the design decisions (InsertOnSubmit), I understand the issues and why the decisions were made. I'm glad to see such a great sense of humor (sarcasm? What sarcasm?) in the midst of such a heated debate.

re: Design of LINQ to SQL - What was I thinking or was I?

Govind — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:43:16 GMT

Dinesh, Please don't take it personally. I think ORM tool needs to designed by folks who develop and maintain a enterprise code base (or have done it rather than pure theory folks )rather than dishing out API which never makes the door (objectspaces - ?, linq to sql and now linq to entity ). Let us clear up the smog around the fact whether linq to sql is going to survive the EF onlslaught. It is sign of wisdom to accept the fact that there are alternatives which have been around for quite some time and doing well and supporting them would be sense of sanity. EGO should be the last factor inhibiting the growth and mutual admiration. It is OKAY for API to come out of NON-MS world.

Heck amazon has become software friendly and is now more known for the EC/AWS than Ms was. It is good to have competition, but competition for the sake of it is dumb. Look at the proliferation and success of java lite frameworks (spring). We should be kind and accepting of the wisdom which does not originate in Redmond. Apologies if I sound harsh - but I have seen similar attitude towards js frameworks where tightly bound Atlas is thrust down. Unity in IoC/DI world was answer to existing stuff. We need not go the Java - committee way, but at the least support the level headed folks rather than calling them mafia??? (I know I have diverted here )

L'accesso ai dati secondo me, ovvero basta con le troppe chiacchiere...

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:45:51 GMT

Sono (con orgoglio) un dipendente Microsoft, una azienda che ha fatto molto nel campo dello sviluppo