Reply to: LINQ to SQL, Entity Framework etc

[Jaws]

Of course optimisation isn't a bad thing, but I have heard of at least three instances where juniour developers have picked up linq to sql used all the wizzy stuff and ended up making thousands of round trips to the db etc etc, my beef is that it can be dangourous, the last Blue chip I was at they were trying to get the BA's to wright applications..mainly because of the RAD and Linq stuff.

That issue also applies to NHibernate and most ORM frameworks out there. Just take them juniors to one side and give them a thrashing, they'll soon learn!

[LittlestHobbo]

See my points inline:

I didn't mean to say wcf was ugly, i love wcf, i have been struggling to fit linq to sql into the previous paradigms, that is what I find ugly. My Middle tier datalayers used to transcribe the optimised data structures from the db into nice and tidy Domian Model objects that other developers could come in and quickly pick up as per all the previous best practice guidelines..

I was thinking about using partial classes as part of my suggested wrapper solution..

I may be stupid but i'm not one of these IT know it all bores -

If you provide some references to your learning material then I might take some of your patronising advice onboard, then you can feel all smug and clever.

Of course optimisation isn't a bad thing, but I have heard of at least three instances where juniour developers have picked up linq to sql used all the wizzy stuff and ended up making thousands of round trips to the db etc etc, my beef is that it can be dangourous, the last Blue chip I was at they were trying to get the BA's to wright applications..mainly because of the RAD and Linq stuff.


I'm sure I'll get a smart alec response...

[LittlestHobbo]

So how have you fitted it into the previous architecture best practisce patterns?

Whilst I can see the benefits of reduced coding, if you pull the database into the Business Tier you loose the benefits of OO and creating a Domain Specific Language.

I've been torn between wrapping the data entities with my business objects, or creating a translation layer between the data and business entities. (This is what my old DataLayers used to do anyway)

I like the generic approach for querying that linq provides, its just trying to fit it into previous best practices that I am struggling with.

I tried custom mappings onto my Business Entities, but ended up in a world of pooh with asociations and cyclic references, and not much documentation.. It just became really clunky...

[themistry]

Not Linq, just Linq to SQL (and the support for the designer in VS.NET).

So all you Linq to SQL code will still run in .NET 4.0, but you will not be able to develop it further in the VS.NET 2010. You'll be encouraged to rewrite the whole thing in Linq to Entities and use the Entity Framework Designer (which is much more complex and hated).

I've just gone over the blogs you posted. This is really quite shocking. They get something right, and decide to turn it on its head.

All they had to do was allow extendable providers for more complex usage situations (i.e. bad architecture ). I have huge volumes going through a Linq To SQL backend with zero issues.

People mistake simplicity for RAD or POC. Why is the world run by thickos. I think ATW has had a hand in this.

TM

[DimPrawn]

linq is being dropped? I had no idea.

Ok, well done ms

Not Linq, just Linq to SQL (and the support for the designer in VS.NET).

So all you Linq to SQL code will still run in .NET 4.0, but you will not be able to develop it further in the VS.NET 2010. You'll be encouraged to rewrite the whole thing in Linq to Entities and use the Entity Framework Designer (which is much more complex and hated).

[themistry]

Sadly though, it's a techno dead end. Apart from bug fixing, it ain't going to be in .NET 4.0

Dropped, never to be mentioned again.

Looks like you'll have plenty of work porting it to the much more complex Entity Framework (which is universally despised by everyone that used it!).

Just read those blogs



GRRRRRRRR!!!

[themistry]

Sadly though, it's a techno dead end. Apart from bug fixing, it ain't going to be in .NET 4.0

Dropped, never to be mentioned again.

Looks like you'll have plenty of work porting it to the much more complex Entity Framework (which is universally despised by everyone that used it!).

linq is being dropped? I had no idea.

Ok, well done ms

[themistry]

Linq to sql - I've been using it on a new project...been struggling like mad to fit it into the usual enterprise patterns (Process, Entities, Data Layer etc).

Use partial classes to compose your Process tier from the linq context, the linq context itself becomes your entity tier (and very powerful too!) and the data layer should be what it was meant to be, a data later (physical database, xml files etc).

Also, if anyone is using it for gods sake run a sql profiler and double check the sql it runs, i got a nasty surprise. (DeferredLoading etc)

So optimisation is a bad thing?

I'd been reading lots of blogs from people going on about how great it is...and been scratching my head...thinking i must be a dumb flip - 'cause at best fitting it into ntier, Domain Models, wcf etc is ugly. Basically you end up with the database model embedded in your business logic domain. (sucks)

I think you hit the nail on the head. You must be dumb. And WCF is ugly? What does that mean? It's probably the most refined service technology available todate.

Whilst it would have been dull, I could of written my data layer in half time with sprocs and datareaders, and i bet it would of performed better, as least I'd know what going on!

think you are missing the point here. And I can write my complex entity and process tiers within minutes. So you are doing something wrong. Sprocs...

Anyone come across any good architecture guides for it?

Haven't checked out the Entity Framework yet...If they can get it right think it must be the way forwards...

See my points inline:

[DimPrawn]

We have used Linq to SQL and Linq to XML extensively (in fact it makes the backend of at least 7 services) in an enterprise project I'm working on.

It is quite simply amazing, and really kicks to earth Hibernate and its .net equivilent.

Fantastic technologies where ms have got something damm right for a change.

TM

Sadly though, it's a techno dead end. Apart from bug fixing, it ain't going to be in .NET 4.0

Dropped, never to be mentioned again.

Looks like you'll have plenty of work porting it to the much more complex Entity Framework (which is universally despised by everyone that used it!).

[themistry]

We have used Linq to SQL and Linq to XML extensively (in fact it makes the backend of at least 7 services) in an enterprise project I'm working on.

It is quite simply amazing, and really kicks to earth Hibernate and its .net equivilent.

Fantastic technologies where ms have got something damm right for a change.

TM

[LittlestHobbo]

Linq to sql - I've been using it on a new project...been struggling like mad to fit it into the usual enterprise patterns (Process, Entities, Data Layer etc).

Also, if anyone is using it for gods sake run a sql profiler and double check the sql it runs, i got a nasty surprise. (DeferredLoading etc)

I'd been reading lots of blogs from people going on about how great it is...and been scratching my head...thinking i must be a dumb **** - 'cause at best fitting it into ntier, Domain Models, wcf etc is ugly. Basically you end up with the database model embedded in your business logic domain. (sucks)

Whilst it would have been dull, I could of written my data layer in half time with sprocs and datareaders, and i bet it would of performed better, as least I'd know what going on!

Anyone come across any good architecture guides for it?

Haven't checked out the Entity Framework yet...If they can get it right think it must be the way forwards...

[Durbs]

Word is LINQ to SQL is dead (quietly dropped).

Nice one, strike that one off my 'stuffimreallygoingtohavetolearnatsomepointbutcant bearsedatthemoment,maybetomorrow' list.

Oh hang on, they're saying the Entity Framework is harder

[Bob Dalek]

Not yet (it's another one of those things on my "must-take-a-look-at" list) but I've also seen it widely panned - there's even a "no confidence" petition.

Oh Dear (TM). That petition, in summary, says, "M$'s crap and we all fell for it."

[DimPrawn]

I guess most people are steering well clear of the latest V1.0 MS technologies, since they seem to have a habit of:

Not working
Disappearing
Being replaced by another V1.0 technology that is not compatible.

Leaving you up sheet creek without a paddle.

[voodooflux]

Anyone here used the Entity Framework (LINQ to Entities)? This is the future, but I've read a lot of scathing reviews of this V1 MS technology.

Not yet (it's another one of those things on my "must-take-a-look-at" list) but I've also seen it widely panned - there's even a "no confidence" petition.