Relaxin said:
Just the answer I would expect from a MS junkie.
While it is unclear if the recepient of that comment would consider it an
insult, it is clear to me that you intended to insult him. Let's keep a
cool head and discuss technology, OK?
If I want to cache all the records to the client then MS should allow me
that option,
why? If you are referring to server-side cursors, the option created
unscalable applications. It was only intended for very narrow uses, and was
nearly always misused by lazy developers creating apps that were not stress
tested before being inflicted on the general public. Those apps were so bad
that they gave MS technology a bad name, because they kept failing under
stress. Other database access methods don't allow this goofy design, and MS
probably shouldn't have either. Sometimes, when you release a technology,
it is hard to see how it will be used or misused. When you realize the
mistake, you take responsibility, correct it, and move on. The product
group did the right thing by turning the spotlight away from this idea.
if I need a live connection, that option should be a available
You have it. DataReader is a live connection. If by "live connection" you
are referring to rowsets, you have to realize that this was another wildly
misused "feature". It is rarely beneficial to use them and most apps that
used them did so at their own peril.
Those were the options available to me with OLEDB.
And you can still use OLEDB if you want. No one is stopping you. It works
just as well under .Net as it did under COM.
MS shouldn't dictate to me how I should write my application, but should
give me the option to write it the way that "I" need it written.
With power comes responsibility to know how to use it. While your tools
should provide power, they should also relieve the burden of learning. In
other words, they should lead you to make good decisions. The OLEDB tools
led to some decisions, not all of them were good. Apparently, you are
rather attached to some of your decisions, but that doesn't make them good
ones.
Also remember, that just because you don't know my design doesn't mean its
bad,
True. However, you have revealed quite a bit about your design in this
series of threads. From what you have revealed, a few very simple
modifications to your design would allow it to work more efficiently and
much more scalably. Is it wrong to point that out? I'm not defending the
previous poster for his emphasis (which was a bit condescending), but I do
agree that a NG is a place for open discussion, even if it means discussion
of design decisions on your part.
it just means you are a closed minded developer that thinks thier way
is the only way.
That's MS junkie thinking.
Don't be quick to throw stones, friend. In this discussion, who among us
has shown an unwillingness to admit when a design is using tools in a sloppy
manner to accomplish a goal that shows a strong lack of understanding of
efficient or effective data access. That unwillingness has led to much of
the frustration that is coming out.
Perhaps, if you listen carefully, you may hear the sound of people who want
to help you.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
