So what: 'native' DataSet, LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework?
-
I understand that LINQ to SQL is meant to be a lightweight ORM framework. LINQ to Entities is the heavyweight, enterprise stuff. I don't recommend using straight ADO.NET unless you're prepared for a lot of plumbing code.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
And that is what's making me go insane these days...
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
I should start by saying that I have no claim to any expertise in this area. I just bumble about, using what I feel like using for anything that I do. If you have the time, I would suggest that you try to do some small part of the project, in each option. The thing is that I suspect that you will get conflicting advice from any CPians who respond. Although there is a likelyhood of a slight bias toward LINQ to SQL, because it has been around longer. By all means take any advice you feel relevant but as I said i'd suck it and see, for myself. Good luck
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
We use NHibernate.NET and it works like a charm. Very easy to set-up, configure and use. ... and it's rather zippy.
-
We use NHibernate.NET and it works like a charm. Very easy to set-up, configure and use. ... and it's rather zippy.
Add Castle.ActiveRecord on top of NHibernate and you'll be done with your datalayer this afternoon!
ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
I understand that LINQ to SQL is meant to be a lightweight ORM framework. LINQ to Entities is the heavyweight, enterprise stuff. I don't recommend using straight ADO.NET unless you're prepared for a lot of plumbing code.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Linq to Sql just isn't ready and anything MS puts a Framework tag line on I avoid.
ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
Is this a web application or a Windows Forms application?
-
Is this a web application or a Windows Forms application?
A WinForm app
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
Write your own, you will be so much happier with the results. The only framework I recommend using is .NET; everything else is buggy, barely usable, fluff.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
If you don't ask questions the answers won't stand in your way.
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego. -
Write your own, you will be so much happier with the results. The only framework I recommend using is .NET; everything else is buggy, barely usable, fluff.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
If you don't ask questions the answers won't stand in your way.
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.:-D
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
-
Linq to Sql just isn't ready and anything MS puts a Framework tag line on I avoid.
ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
Ed K wrote:
Linq to Sql just isn't ready
I don't buy that. StackOverflow is becoming one of the biggest dev sites on the web, and they're using Linq-to-SQL behind the scenes.
Ed K wrote:
anything MS puts a Framework tag line on I avoid.
Well then, you should certainly avoid Entities since it's part of the larger .NET framework. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
I think it's best trying to avoid LINQ to SQL for any new development. MS have pretty much abandoned it and if what I've heard is true are giving that reason for not fixing the bugs that exist in it. I haven't used entity framework but guess that's more future proof. Alternatively consider something like nHibernate. I haven't used any other than a teensy bit of L2SQL as our company has its own in-house framework and code generator.
-
Write your own, you will be so much happier with the results. The only framework I recommend using is .NET; everything else is buggy, barely usable, fluff.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
If you don't ask questions the answers won't stand in your way.
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
The only framework I recommend using is .NET; everything else is buggy, barely usable, fluff.
Hey, now: there's plenty of buggy, barely-usable fluff in .NET...
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
The only framework I recommend using is .NET; everything else is buggy, barely usable, fluff.
Hey, now: there's plenty of buggy, barely-usable fluff in .NET...
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Yes but it only gets worse as you move up the chain not better.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
If you don't ask questions the answers won't stand in your way.
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego. -
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
I have yet to experience the apparent value of any ORM, or 'upper' DAL. I'm often more than happy to use the DAAB and pass my UI DataSets from it, if I even need it.
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
LINQ 2 SQL is up in the air at the moment. That said though, I still use it although it makes sense to keep your datalayer flexible enough that it could be repleaced in the future if there is a need. I kind of expect LINQ 2 SQL to stay around, but you never know with Microsoft and their new cuts. I still do not use EF at all, maybe some day but not yet.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Doughboy – R.I.P. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
I think Linq to SQL is a brilliant start if you want to get something up and running fast. Combined with Linqpad to generate queries, cut and paste into C#. Also built into Visual Studio no mucking around with configuration files 3rd party libraries etc etc. Give Linqpad a go for a taste of Linq to SQL. David
-
Ed K wrote:
Linq to Sql just isn't ready
I don't buy that. StackOverflow is becoming one of the biggest dev sites on the web, and they're using Linq-to-SQL behind the scenes.
Ed K wrote:
anything MS puts a Framework tag line on I avoid.
Well then, you should certainly avoid Entities since it's part of the larger .NET framework. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
I don't buy that.
You don't have to. I'm not trying to sell anything. I was using Linq-to-SQL in a previous project after using Castle.ActiveRecord on several beforehand and comparing the two.. IMHO... Linq-to-SQL just isn't ready for prime time.
Judah Himango wrote:
you should certainly avoid Entities
MS decided to build a testing framework, a logging framework, sql framework and pretty soon I'm expecting a framework framework. They're generally too intrusive, not very flexible and don't cover all the bases. Linq-to-SQL isn't named a framework but same applies.
ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
None of the above. I roll my own. Don't relinquish control to some unknown entity (I tried not to use that word, but found no suitable alternative). Use the lowest-level tools you can and retain control of the process. Higher-level frameworks are just bloat that call the same stuff you could be. Anyone who accesses data with .net should have an understanding of the classes in System.Data and should know how to use them. If you then choose to use something else, at least do it as an informed choice.
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
ActiveRecord is so fucking good... you can use the .NET implementation (the castle, but to me is too ugly) or you can use the ruby one! maybe you should take a look in the original Ruby implementation and the working code in Ruby on Rails (so beatyful)... you dont gonna waist your time :) regards from brazil
modified on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:42 AM
-
I spent the last two days reading various articles and blogs about LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework. After all, I'm still unsure which technology I should use for a project with a SQL Server 2005/2008 that has 50 or less tables. Any idea?
Give SubSonic (www.subsonicproject.com) a bash - the learning curve is fairly flat - it offers a query tool (no sql to write), and a decent code generator. It does force you to stick to an ActiveRecord pattern (1 class per table) but it saves yonks of time. You can modify the code generated through templates. SubSonic is also quite performant . If you fancy bleeding edge code try the new version as this offers some LINQ goodness.