TableAdapters and true N-Tier

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by CMM, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. CMM

    CMM Guest

    Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you can
    use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    shared across layers.

    I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    .... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming a
    few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten the
    lessons learned in the past.

    The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT, they're
    USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or dll as a
    whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're not
    intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class), and
    placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.

    --
    -C. Moya
    www.cmoya.com
     
    CMM, Apr 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Well i can only say one thing regarding this

    I agree ...

    regards

    Michel Posseth [MCP]



    "CMM" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    > can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    > DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    > shared across layers.
    >
    > I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    > (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    > ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    > the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    > a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten the
    > lessons learned in the past.
    >
    > The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT, they're
    > USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or dll as a
    > whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're not
    > intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class), and
    > placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >
    > --
    > -C. Moya
    > www.cmoya.com
    >
     
    Michel Posseth [MCP], Apr 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I don't like TableAdapters.

    Forget n-tier, they have other problems too.

    Here are my views on 'em -
    http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet/msg/d9fb36b0b3192bc3?hl=en&


    - Sahil Malik [MVP]
    ADO.NET 2.0 book -
    http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/05/13/63199.aspx
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "CMM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    > can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    > DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    > shared across layers.
    >
    > I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    > (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    > ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    > the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    > a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten the
    > lessons learned in the past.
    >
    > The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT, they're
    > USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or dll as a
    > whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're not
    > intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class), and
    > placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >
    > --
    > -C. Moya
    > www.cmoya.com
    >
     
    Sahil Malik [MVP C#], Apr 21, 2006
    #3
  4. CMM

    David Browne Guest

    "CMM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    > can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    > DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    > shared across layers.
    >
    > I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    > (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    > ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    > the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    > a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten the
    > lessons learned in the past.
    >
    > The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT, they're
    > USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or dll as a
    > whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're not
    > intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class), and
    > placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >


    Why not just set the Table Adapters to "internal"? The DataAccessLayer
    would be in one DLL and only the Datasets themselves would be shared.

    Or why not go one better and not share the DataSet definitions at all.
    Create an interface for each entity, and make the DataSet entities
    (DataTables and DataRows) implement those interfaces. Then client code can
    bind to the interfaces, and never have to know that it's reading and writing
    to DataSets.


    David
     
    David Browne, Apr 21, 2006
    #4
  5. CMM

    CMM Guest

    > Or why not go one better and not share the DataSet definitions at all.
    > Create an interface for each entity, and make the DataSet entities
    > (DataTables and DataRows) implement those interfaces. Then client code
    > can bind to the interfaces, and never have to know that it's reading and
    > writing to DataSets.


    This is interesting... as I use interfaces already in a shared dll to
    communicate with the DAL (i.e. the DAL dll doesn't get installed on the
    client machine just to provide class definitions a la the lazy-man's
    n-tier). But DataSets (and other "data-only" types and classes) get put into
    the same shareable "Types" dll. I'll have to look into it.... seems like an
    aweful lot of work though to extend the "Interfaces" paradigm to Datasets as
    well.

    > Why not just set the Table Adapters to "internal"? The DataAccessLayer
    > would be in one DLL and only the Datasets themselves would be shared.


    I didn't know you could do that. You're saying you can *hide* the
    TableAdapters? I'll look into it. But it still feels a bit icky.

    --
    -C. Moya
    www.cmoya.com
    "David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted > wrote in
    message news:%...
    >
    > "CMM" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    >> can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    >> DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    >> shared across layers.
    >>
    >> I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    >> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    >> (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    >> ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    >> the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    >> a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten
    >> the lessons learned in the past.
    >>
    >> The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT,
    >> they're USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or
    >> dll as a whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're
    >> not intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class),
    >> and placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >>

    >
    > Why not just set the Table Adapters to "internal"? The DataAccessLayer
    > would be in one DLL and only the Datasets themselves would be shared.
    >
    > Or why not go one better and not share the DataSet definitions at all.
    > Create an interface for each entity, and make the DataSet entities
    > (DataTables and DataRows) implement those interfaces. Then client code
    > can bind to the interfaces, and never have to know that it's reading and
    > writing to DataSets.
    >
    >
    > David
    >
     
    CMM, Apr 21, 2006
    #5
  6. I expect that the MS folks are working on this aspect of TableAdapters.
    Check out Jackie Goldstein's comments as well. He's been demonstrating how
    to do this in his talks.

    --
    ____________________________________
    William (Bill) Vaughn
    Author, Mentor, Consultant
    Microsoft MVP
    INETA Speaker
    www.betav.com/blog/billva
    www.betav.com
    Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    __________________________________

    "CMM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    > can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    > DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    > shared across layers.
    >
    > I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    > (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    > ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    > the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    > a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten the
    > lessons learned in the past.
    >
    > The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT, they're
    > USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or dll as a
    > whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're not
    > intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class), and
    > placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >
    > --
    > -C. Moya
    > www.cmoya.com
    >
     
    William \(Bill\) Vaughn, Apr 21, 2006
    #6
  7. CMM

    CMM Guest

    I've said it many times.... the CLR (and for the most part Framework too)
    guys did an outstanding job on .NET 2.0. But the IDE and Editor/Designer
    guys were asleep the whole time. It's like everything was written by a bunch
    of amatuers straight out of college.

    Wow... I just read your article. I didn't know about the queries .... but
    now I see in the code behind the bunch of "& _ " used to build the queries.
    Ridiculous. Just plain ridiculous.

    --
    -C. Moya
    www.cmoya.com

    "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I don't like TableAdapters.
    >
    > Forget n-tier, they have other problems too.
    >
    > Here are my views on 'em -
    > http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet/msg/d9fb36b0b3192bc3?hl=en&
    >
    >
    > - Sahil Malik [MVP]
    > ADO.NET 2.0 book -
    > http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/05/13/63199.aspx
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > "CMM" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    >> can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    >> DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    >> shared across layers.
    >>
    >> I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    >> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    >> (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    >> ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    >> the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    >> a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten
    >> the lessons learned in the past.
    >>
    >> The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT,
    >> they're USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or
    >> dll as a whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're
    >> not intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class),
    >> and placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >>
    >> --
    >> -C. Moya
    >> www.cmoya.com
    >>

    >
    >
     
    CMM, Apr 21, 2006
    #7
  8. CMM

    CMM Guest

    For what, the next major release of VS or what??? This should have been done
    right in VS2005 to begin with.

    --
    -C. Moya
    www.cmoya.com
    "William (Bill) Vaughn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I expect that the MS folks are working on this aspect of TableAdapters.
    >Check out Jackie Goldstein's comments as well. He's been demonstrating how
    >to do this in his talks.
    >
    > --
    > ____________________________________
    > William (Bill) Vaughn
    > Author, Mentor, Consultant
    > Microsoft MVP
    > INETA Speaker
    > www.betav.com/blog/billva
    > www.betav.com
    > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.
    > __________________________________
    >
    > "CMM" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Unless someone has come up with a way, I still don't understand how you
    >> can use TableAdapters in a true n-tier infrastructure.... where the
    >> DataAccessLayer is in one Dll and *only* the Datasets themselves can be
    >> shared across layers.
    >>
    >> I find it inconceivable that this suggestion
    >> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=d2907b53-885b-4d24-bc9c-1a04d76036e4
    >> (that's not me who suggested it) has been marked as "won't fix."
    >> ... even more strange that there hasn't been more of clamor about this in
    >> the community. It seems that everybody nowadays either wasn't programming
    >> a few years ago in VB.Classic days or has gotten amnesia and forgotten
    >> the lessons learned in the past.
    >>
    >> The TableAdapters are more robust than a regular DataAdapter. BUT,
    >> they're USELESS if you can't place them outside of the DataSet *FILE* or
    >> dll as a whole. I mean, they're placed in a separate namespace, they're
    >> not intrinsically tied to the DataSet (i.e. they're not a nested class),
    >> and placing them in the Dataset files violates TRUE n-tier rules.
    >>
    >> --
    >> -C. Moya
    >> www.cmoya.com
    >>

    >
    >
     
    CMM, Apr 21, 2006
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rob

    ASP v2 & 3-tier or 2-tier

    rob, Aug 13, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    420
    Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]
    Aug 13, 2004
  2. NOSPAM

    2 tier to 3 tier?

    NOSPAM, Oct 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    444
    =?Utf-8?B?Q293Ym95IChHcmVnb3J5IEEuIEJlYW1lcikgLSBN
    Oct 14, 2004
  3. Steve Kershaw

    Setting up a new tier in a 3-tier system?

    Steve Kershaw, Mar 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    458
    Steve Kershaw
    Mar 29, 2006
  4. Shantanu Bhattacharya
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    564
    Christopher Benson-Manica
    Dec 26, 2003
  5. bdb112
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,370
    jazbees
    Apr 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page