Rants Tagged with “.NET”
This is freaking huge in my opinion. It seems that all the fuss about how hard ASP.NET 2.0 has made it for many of us has gotten through to the team (yeah!). You can download the Preview here:
http://webproject.scottgu.com/
I am currently doing a bunch of evaluations on OR Mappers, Code Gen and Business Object Frameworks for my new book. If anyone knows about anything great that might go unnoticed, please drop a comment or send me an email!
Thanks!
According to this post (this highlights my belief that MS is discouraging DataSets enough though they are using them everywhere (e.g. inside DataSources)). SInce Typed DataSets don't work out of the box with ObjectDataSources, we are left with three uncomfortable solutions:
- Ditch them and write Business Objects even in small apps
- Use SqlDataSources and don't allow NULL's in any of our columns (see my previous rant).
- Write a wrapper class around every DataTable (or perhaps in the partial class) to allow the Object DataSource to work with it.
The Partial Class solution may be easiest, but it is still some magical mix of parameters that will make it appear in the ObjectDataSource configuration dialog. I hope to have a better solution soon for this, but don't count on it.
I've been working on a problem for a client's project. We are doing pretty raw RAD design for a small intranet project so I thought, hey let's just do SqlDataSources to get the pages up and running fast. This works fine *if* we don't want any concurrency.
Let me repeat that, this works fine *if* we do not want concurrency.
The problem lies in the fact that we have columns that are null-able (pretty common in schema design). The concurrency that is generated by ASP.NET 2.0's SqlDataSource does not do the same concurrency (e.g. WHILE foo = @foo OR (foo is null and @foo is null)) that Typed DataSets and CommandBuilders have done for several years.
My guess is that this is another example of how fractured the data teams in Microsoft are. One team does DataSets, which another does Typed DataSets, and if I am correct, yet another does the DataSource work.
Arg!
Michael Earls' blog has a quick 411 on the new Web Project Beta from Microsoft that includes support for pre-building all the assemblies into a single assembly for deployment. Check it out if you're doing anything with
ASP.NET 2.0.
I've added a couple of new features (thanks to Chris Sells for QA'ing it for me):
- You can now click on your name in the logon header (if you've registered) to edit details about your account and change/reset your password.
- If you have registered, I automatically pre-populate the Add Comments Name/Website for you.
Welcome to the new version of The ADO Guy. Most of the changes are under the covers, but there are a few things to note:
- No more collapsable sections (some of you didn't like them and I agreed).
- Registration is now required to ask questions. I've gotten a lot of abuse from my open way to submit questions. I am sorry to have to resort to this, but I am hoping this will help the process not hurt it. User information will only be used for questions and communication about them.
- Some visual changes, but not many.
Please let me know what you like and don't like. A couple of things aren't working yet:
- Searching quesitons is disabled for now. It'll return soon.
- The Book Owners area is disabled. This will return very very soon.
UPDATE: Comments aren't working...Yet.
It's been about four days working with the
Visual Studio 2005 RTM, and other than the issues I've been
kvetching about the last couple months, it seems pretty solid. I haven't played with the
SQL Server 2005 bits yet as I have a gig I am working on that doesn't require it. I'll continue to blog here about my observations, but it does seem better than the RC...just not sure by how much yet.
Usually I don't like to link to mailing list archives, but this is an excellent reply to a question on the Advanced .NET Mailing list. Ian explains this better that I have read before. He covers why you would choose one over the other for the security and perfomance implications of each. It's a must read IMHO.
Scott Woodgate has a new blog entry that explains that they didn't copyright the WWF (as they couldn't since the protracted legal battle that World Wildlife Fund won against the World Wrestling Federation {Now called WWE}). I vote for a whole new name since Workflow doesn't quite explain it. If
Chris Sells is having trouble getting his head around it, us mortals might have trouble understanding its real implications.
