business objects vs. datasets

[RobinS]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Yes, I probably did, but apparently I didn't notice. I'll check it out.
Thanks!

Robin S.
--------------------------------------------
"Bruce W. Darby" <kracorat@atcom cast.netwrote in message
news:yL-dnQQhhNQkq1PYnZ 2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@ comcast.com...

Robin,
>
When I purchased my copy of Start to Finish Visual Basic, I got a free 30
day trial of the Safari system. Did you not receive that with your copy?
And like yourself, I do prefer the paper copy... more than likely because
I'm old and set in my ways. hehehe
>
Bruce
>
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:8uidnUKtF9 onlVPYnZ2dnUVZ_ r6vnZ2d@comcast .com...

>Cool. I live in the East Bay. You're right, it's nice to be able to see
>the book before you buy it, and I'd rather have a paper copy that I can
>put markers in, and write in. Thanks for the tip.
>>
>Robin S.
>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>---------------------------------------------------------
>"Jason Vermillion" <JasonVermillio n@discussions.m icrosoft.comwro te in
>message news:FC06DFF4-D1D4-449C-8CCA-4E4F90457F0C@mi crosoft.com...

>>>
>>I'm in California south of san francisco.
>>>
>>I'm not a big fan of ebooks but it let's you read through a book and
>>see if
>>it is worth picking up a paper copy.
>>>
>>Jason Vermillion
>>>
>>"RobinS" wrote:
>>>
>>>Oh, that's really cool. Is that CA as in California, or CA as in
>>>Canada? If
>>>it's California, I'm heading down to the library to see if mine has
>>>that
>>>capability .
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>-------------------------------
>>>"Jason Vermillion" <JasonVermillio n@discussions.m icrosoft.comwro te
>>>in
>>>message news:89904698-E254-41C5-9B01-4E70BF32B5A5@mi crosoft.com...
>>>
>>Also, If you don't have a subscription to Safari, your local libray
>>might.
>>I checked my county libray here in CA and I can get access to Safari
>>online
>>at home.
>>>
>>Jason Vermillion
>>>
>>"RobinS" wrote:
>>>If you have a subscription to Safari, you can see Deborah Kurata's
>>>book
>>>online. I understand it has been made available, or at least parts
>>>of
>>>it.
>>>Amazon says it's going to be available 2/21.
>>>>
>>>http://www.amazon.com/Objects-Visual...e=UTF8&s=books
>>>>
>>>I can't even *imagine* that Microsoft would drop ADO.Net, at least
>>>not
>>>in
>>>the next couple of years. Farther ahead than that, who knows what
>>>they
>>>will
>>>do. They seem headed in the XML direction, but I just don't see it
>>>for
>>>huge
>>>amounts of data. Plus, it would hardly be in their best interest,
>>>considerin g how hard they have worked to make SQLServer a viable
>>>alternativ e to Oracle. So there has to be *some* way to transfer
>>>data
>>>back
>>>and forth to SQLServer!
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>---------------------------------------
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:uefNZl8 SHHA.388@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..
>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>coming
>>out.
>>>
>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>looked
>>into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to do
>>it
>>myself and learn it better.
>>>
>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET
>>for
>>good
>>or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>news:UcOdnelJ lZs09VfYnZ2dnUV Z_veinZ2d@comca st.com...
>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>
>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new
>>>book
>>>coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that
>>>shows
>>>exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that
>>>methodolog y.
>>>It's
>>>called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>
>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>business objects, but the data access is tighter because you
>>>have
>>>more
>>>control over it.
>>>>
>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>strongly
>>>typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but her
>>>data
>>>layer
>>>passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the UI.
>>>>
>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures
>>>and
>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored
>>>procedures .
>>>I'm
>>>not exactly certain how she does that, it's something I want to
>>>follow
>>>up on to find out.
>>>>
>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>informatio n
>>>will help in some way. Other people will definitely have an
>>>opinion,
>>>I'm
>>>sure.
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote
>>>in
>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old
>>>>VB6
>>>>application .
>>>>>
>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask
>>>>couple of
>>>>questions regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>
>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>datasets/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>
>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's
>>>>correct
>>>>way.
>>>>>
>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>
>>>>Datasets
>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing
>>>>WPF/Linq
>>>>initiativ e and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in
>>>>2-3
>>>>years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>
>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[RobinS]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

I've read the Sceppa book, but while it covers ADO.net and database access
and so forth in full, it's only related to business objects insofar as
storing the info after you've collected it. Technically, all that stuff
should be in one's data access layer anyway. It's definitely a great book.
I mostly use stored procedures and paramaterized queries, and he definitely
covers that.

I haven't read Bill's book, although I seem to keep visiting it at the
bookstore just to look at it. I haven't decided if I need it yet, so I
haven't bought it yet. Again, it's about SQLServer, etc., not how to create
a 3-layer application model.

Robin S.
------------------------------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2351zT6UT HHA.496@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .

Robin,
>

>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>of their books are certainly exemplary.

>
Read the subject, you never can compare with only one factor.
>
:-)
>
Cor
>
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:cpKdnVkLae BslVPYnZ2dnUVZ_ revnZ2d@comcast .com...

>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>
>Robin S.
>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>-----------------------------------------------
>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>news:O0CNDkPTH HA.996@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

>>Penelope,
>>>
>>If you think about buying Deborah's book, than certainly don't forget
>>to buy the books from David and Bill (Sceppa and Vaughn). The last two
>>are .Net specialists as long as .Net exist.
>>>
>>Cor
>>>
>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom schreef in
>>bericht news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...
>>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>>coming out.
>>>>
>>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>>looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
>>>do it myself and learn it better.
>>>>
>>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for
>>>good or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>>news:UcOdnel JlZs09VfYnZ2dnU VZ_veinZ2d@comc ast.com...
>>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>>
>>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new book
>>>>coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that shows
>>>>exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that methodology.
>>>>It's called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>>
>>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>>business objects, but the data access is tighter because you have
>>>>more control over it.
>>>>>
>>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>>strongly typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but
>>>>her data layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the UI.
>>>>>
>>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored procedures.
>>>>I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's something I want to
>>>>follow up on to find out.
>>>>>
>>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>>informati on will help in some way. Other people will definitely have
>>>>an opinion, I'm sure.
>>>>>
>>>>Robin S.
>>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>>applicatio n.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple of
>>>>>question s regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>>datasets/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct
>>>>>way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Datasets
>>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>>initiati ve and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in 2-3
>>>>>years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[William \(Bill\) Vaughn]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Nope, it's not. It's about more pragmatic (and more commonly used)
approaches. Rocky Lhotka or Deb Kurata are the authorities on OO stuff.

--
_______________ _______________ ______
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker

https://www.betav.com/blog/billva

https://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.
_______________ _______________ ____
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:k7-dnbjdE8Ib81PYnZ 2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@ comcast.com...

I've read the Sceppa book, but while it covers ADO.net and database access
and so forth in full, it's only related to business objects insofar as
storing the info after you've collected it. Technically, all that stuff
should be in one's data access layer anyway. It's definitely a great
book. I mostly use stored procedures and paramaterized queries, and he
definitely covers that.
>
I haven't read Bill's book, although I seem to keep visiting it at the
bookstore just to look at it. I haven't decided if I need it yet, so I
haven't bought it yet. Again, it's about SQLServer, etc., not how to
create a 3-layer application model.
>
Robin S.
------------------------------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2351zT6UT HHA.496@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .

>Robin,
>>

>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>>of their books are certainly exemplary.

>>
>Read the subject, you never can compare with only one factor.
>>
>:-)
>>
>Cor
>>
>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
>news:cpKdnVkLa eBslVPYnZ2dnUVZ _revnZ2d@comcas t.com...

>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>>of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>
>>Robin S.
>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>>news:O0CNDkPT HHA.996@TK2MSFT NGP02.phx.gbl.. .
>>>Penelope,
>>>>
>>>If you think about buying Deborah's book, than certainly don't forget
>>>to buy the books from David and Bill (Sceppa and Vaughn). The last two
>>>are .Net specialists as long as .Net exist.
>>>>
>>>Cor
>>>>
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom schreef in
>>>bericht news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...
>>>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>>>coming out.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>>>looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
>>>>do it myself and learn it better.
>>>>>
>>>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for
>>>>good or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>>>news:UcOdne lJlZs09VfYnZ2dn UVZ_veinZ2d@com cast.com...
>>>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new book
>>>>>coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that shows
>>>>>exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that methodology.
>>>>>It's called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>>>
>>>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>>>business objects, but the data access is tighter because you have
>>>>>more control over it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>>>strongly typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but
>>>>>her data layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the UI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored procedures.
>>>>>I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's something I want to
>>>>>follow up on to find out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>>>informatio n will help in some way. Other people will definitely have
>>>>>an opinion, I'm sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>>"Penelop e Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>>>applicati on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple of
>>>>>>questio ns regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>>>dataset s/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct
>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dataset s
>>>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>>>initiativ e and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in 2-3
>>>>>>years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[Matt Vaughn]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Penelope,
If you really want custom objects (most flexibility, extensible, etc.);
there are costs involved. You will have to custom develop your business
domain - this is what I think you mean when you say custom business objects.
Rocky's books and framework are not the purest implementation of a business
domain.

I suggest you look at Eric Evans "Domain Driven Design" and/or Nillson's
book on the same subject with C#. Using DataSets or DLINQ with LINQ; or
NHibernate, .NetTiers, etc. will only get you so far. I have been
researching this topic and implementing various application frameworks at
this level. Do not tightely couple your business domain (custom objects)
with the data layer (nor inherit from these objects to add behavior). Using
DataSets or DLINQ or anything similiar is saying your business objects look
like your database. These are (2) entirely different structures: 1.
object-oriented and the other 2. relational.

This impedence mismatch only causes some to go down (my opinion) the wrong
path with trying to map business objects to generated objects based on the
data model. This mapping creates unnessesary overhead.

In order to add some balance to this email, I would think that using these
other techniques appropriate if the tight coupling is ok; and the
application will be committed to using this same technology for the lifetime
of the application. If it is a requirement for the data persistence layer to
be swapped out in the future - you only choice is NOT tightly couple these
data objects with the other tiers of the application. This is why I'm such a
fan of the custom business object; but this requires much planning and
structuring.

Regards,

Matt Vaughn


"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:Oc6dnXCRI7 CYuVHYnZ2dnUVZ_ o2vnZ2d@comcast .com...

You can also check out Rockford Lhotka's books if you want to know more
about Business Object ; he's very well-known in the field. I have looked
at them, but not read them. Deborah's book seemed a lot more "hands-on" to
me, and less theory.
>
Just my opinion.
Robin S.
---------------------------------
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:qbWdnWcCwK HTvlHYnZ2dnUVZ_ syunZ2d@comcast .com...

>If you have a subscription to Safari, you can see Deborah Kurata's book
>online. I understand it has been made available, or at least parts of it.
>Amazon says it's going to be available 2/21.
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/Objects-Visual...e=UTF8&s=books
>>
>I can't even *imagine* that Microsoft would drop ADO.Net, at least not in
>the next couple of years. Farther ahead than that, who knows what they
>will do. They seem headed in the XML direction, but I just don't see it
>for huge amounts of data. Plus, it would hardly be in their best
>interest, considering how hard they have worked to make SQLServer a
>viable alternative to Oracle. So there has to be *some* way to transfer
>data back and forth to SQLServer!
>>
>Robin S.
>---------------------------------------
>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>message news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...

>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's coming
>>out.
>>>
>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already looked
>>into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to do it
>>myself and learn it better.
>>>
>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for good
>>or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>news:UcOdnelJ lZs09VfYnZ2dnUV Z_veinZ2d@comca st.com...
>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>
>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new book
>>>coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that shows
>>>exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that methodology. It's
>>>called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>
>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>business objects, but the data access is tighter because you have more
>>>control over it.
>>>>
>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses strongly
>>>typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but her data
>>>layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the UI.
>>>>
>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored procedures.
>>>I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's something I want to
>>>follow up on to find out.
>>>>
>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this information
>>>will help in some way. Other people will definitely have an opinion,
>>>I'm sure.
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>application .
>>>>>
>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple of
>>>>questions regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>
>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>datasets/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>
>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct way.
>>>>>
>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>
>>>>Datasets
>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>initiativ e and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in 2-3
>>>>years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>
>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[RobinS]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

It does look like a great book, though. You did a great job writing it.

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveTh is@nwlink.comwr ote in message
news:OjiUTIYTHH A.3316@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

Nope, it's not. It's about more pragmatic (and more commonly used)
approaches. Rocky Lhotka or Deb Kurata are the authorities on OO stuff.
>
--
_______________ _______________ ______
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker

https://www.betav.com/blog/billva

https://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.
_______________ _______________ ____
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:k7-dnbjdE8Ib81PYnZ 2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@ comcast.com...

>I've read the Sceppa book, but while it covers ADO.net and database
>access and so forth in full, it's only related to business objects
>insofar as storing the info after you've collected it. Technically, all
>that stuff should be in one's data access layer anyway. It's definitely
>a great book. I mostly use stored procedures and paramaterized queries,
>and he definitely covers that.
>>
>I haven't read Bill's book, although I seem to keep visiting it at the
>bookstore just to look at it. I haven't decided if I need it yet, so I
>haven't bought it yet. Again, it's about SQLServer, etc., not how to
>create a 3-layer application model.
>>
>Robin S.
>------------------------------------
>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>news:%2351zT6U THHA.496@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

>>Robin,
>>>
>>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But
>>>both of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>
>>Read the subject, you never can compare with only one factor.
>>>
>>:-)
>>>
>>Cor
>>>
>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
>>news:cpKdnVkL aeBslVPYnZ2dnUV Z_revnZ2d@comca st.com...
>>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But
>>>both of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>>>news:O0CNDkP THHA.996@TK2MSF TNGP02.phx.gbl. ..
>>>>Penelope,
>>>>>
>>>>If you think about buying Deborah's book, than certainly don't forget
>>>>to buy the books from David and Bill (Sceppa and Vaughn). The last
>>>>two are .Net specialists as long as .Net exist.
>>>>>
>>>>Cor
>>>>>
>>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom schreef in
>>>>bericht news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>>>>coming out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>>>>looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
>>>>>do it myself and learn it better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for
>>>>>good or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>>>>news:UcOdn elJlZs09VfYnZ2d nUVZ_veinZ2d@co mcast.com...
>>>>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new
>>>>>>book coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that
>>>>>>shows exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that
>>>>>>methodolo gy. It's called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>>>>busines s objects, but the data access is tighter because you have
>>>>>>more control over it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>>>>strongl y typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but
>>>>>>her data layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the
>>>>>>UI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored
>>>>>>procedure s. I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's
>>>>>>somethi ng I want to follow up on to find out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>>>>informati on will help in some way. Other people will definitely
>>>>>>have an opinion, I'm sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>"Penelo pe Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>>>>applicat ion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple
>>>>>>>of questions regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>>>>datase ts/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct
>>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Datase ts
>>>>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>>>>initiati ve and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in
>>>>>>>2-3 years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[Anon-E-Moose]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl:

I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
do it myself and learn it better.

LLBLGen is perhaps the best code generator out there.

Unless you're very new to .NET, it doesn't make sense to rewrite the data
layer - it's redundant and boring code. Plus if someone else has written,
debugged, tested the code - why bother?

[Spam Catcher]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

"Matt Vaughn" <mjvaughn@hotma il.comwrote in
news:egVuPnYTHH A.1552@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl:

Using
DataSets or DLINQ or anything similiar is saying your business objects
look like your database. These are (2) entirely different structures:
1. object-oriented and the other 2. relational.
>
This impedence mismatch only causes some to go down (my opinion) the
wrong path with trying to map business objects to generated objects
based on the data model. This mapping creates unnessesary overhead.

Although I agree mapping data mapping introduces a performance penalty, it
does make using database data intutiative.

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Matt Vaughn wrote:

Penelope,
If you really want custom objects (most flexibility, extensible,
etc.); there are costs involved. You will have to custom develop your
business domain - this is what I think you mean when you say custom
business objects. Rocky's books and framework are not the purest
implementation of a business domain.

of course you don't need to implement that by hand.

I suggest you look at Eric Evans "Domain Driven Design" and/or
Nillson's book on the same subject with C#. Using DataSets or DLINQ
with LINQ; or NHibernate, .NetTiers, etc. will only get you so far. I
have been researching this topic and implementing various application
frameworks at this level. Do not tightely couple your business domain
(custom objects) with the data layer (nor inherit from these objects
to add behavior).

Please explain why you want to do this. Just saying someone shouldn't,
sounds OK but in this case it's pretty odd.

Take for example this: do you also subclass every grid control you use
on your forms and implement an interface and place your grid using code
in that subclass and place an instance of THAT class on your form? OR
do you just place a grid on your form and add the grid using code to
the form? If the latter, you're doing exactly what you say Penelope
shouldn't do with data classes.

There IS a coupling between BO's and the datalayer, if you like it or
not: a BO represents an entity, and the entity instances are stored in
the database. Didn't you just mean to avoid a coupling between entity
class and persistence logic?

Besides that, in DDD land there's a huge dispute about targeting
repositories from entities: some say it's absolutely necessary and OK,
others say it's downright wrong to do that.

Calling repositories from entities is essentially coupling your
data-oriented code to an entity's code.

Who's right? Does it really matter? NO Of course it doesn't matter.
You see, "thou shall not do this" is stupid with regards to writing
software. People should be more pragmatic, as almost all of the people
who claim that you shouldn't do this or that have no clue whatsoever
WHY they claim that, but they read it somewhere on Fowler's site or in
some book.

Some people say that having a Save() method on an entity is BAD.
Others find it NECESSARY. Are these people stupid? No, because they
have this reasoning: the 'Save()' method is behavior, and it's behavior
affecting the data inside the class, so it should be implemented on the
class it saves. Otherwise, why have behavior B in the class but
behavior C not in the class?

Although I find persistence a service which should be applied to
entities, and therefore should be external to entity classes so the
coupling between persistence logic and the entity code itself is not
there (we support both paradigms), I can understand why some people
find it logical that persistence logic is like any other behavior and
should be in the class. Who are we to judge that they're wrong, because
on what ground do we have the authority to say they're wrong and they
shouldn't like that approach? What if they find it logical so they can
understand their own code better and work more efficient?

Using DataSets or DLINQ or anything similiar is
saying your business objects look like your database. These are (2)
entirely different structures: 1. object-oriented and the other 2.
relational.

You mix two things: table oriented data-access (datasets) and object
oriented dataaccess (linq-to-sql, o/r mappers). These two aren't the
same.

This impedence mismatch only causes some to go down (my opinion) the
wrong path with trying to map business objects to generated objects
based on the data model. This mapping creates unnessesary overhead.

1) proof where the overhead is, otherwise don't claim there is
unnecessary overhead. Dyn.proxy at runtime for example creates more
overhead than you might think.
2) they're not mapping BO's to object based on the datamodel, they
REVERSE engineer the datamodel into a relational model on the level of
NIAM/ORM, so with inheritance. At that level, you can create classes
for these entities similar to how you can create tables from an
NIAM/ORM model.

You can claim all you want but the entity model at the abstraction
level of a NIAM/ORM model is what you start with too, so the starting
point is the same.

Sure, if you just generate a class per table, it's not really going
anywhere, but for example LLBLGen Pro, of which I'm lead developer of,
reverse engineers the datamodel to the level of NIAM where it allows
you to have an entity model on the abstract level you start with when
you create the BO's by hand.

So what's the difference then? The only difference I see is that you
write all the plumbing code by hand while with a proper tool it's done
for you.

In order to add some balance to this email, I would think that using
these other techniques appropriate if the tight coupling is ok; and
the application will be committed to using this same technology for
the lifetime of the application. If it is a requirement for the data
persistence layer to be swapped out in the future - you only choice
is NOT tightly couple these data objects with the other tiers of the
application. This is why I'm such a fan of the custom business
object; but this requires much planning and structuring.

Swapping out a persistence layer is almost never done, and IF it's
done, it's as much work as swapping infragistics grids on 400 screens
for devexpress' grids. Do you take measures so that you can swap out
grids? Probably not, because why would you swap out grid X for grid Y ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of colliding everything into one
big class and have fun, on the contrary. What I'm trying to make clear
is that if people try to abstract away something, they really need to
understand why they do that. And 'because person XYZ says so' is not a
good reason. Abstracting away something creates overhead, if not at
compile time then at least at runtime, a different application design
which requires documentation for people not familiar with the
abstraction, extra work to implement the abstraction etc.

It's the same for persistence logic. I have never seen a business case
where the persistence layer had to be swappable because it would be
essential for the application. You see, it's hard to do that, as O/R
mappers today aren't just persistence layers anymore (well, nhibernate
perhaps) but entity management systems. People take for granted that if
they do:
myOrder.Custome r = myCustomer;
they get myOrder.Custome rID synced with myCustomer.Cust omerID. Which
code makes that happen? Not your code, unless you write it by hand.
Which is not that easy, because:
myOrder.Custome rID = _someOtherCusto merID;
has to make myOrder.Custome r become null, because otherwise your
CustomerID and Customer would be out of sync.

Silly stuff? Not at all. People who use mature o/r mapper systems know
this code can help them out throughout their OWN code.

Take the way nhibernate forces you to instantiate an entity. You
always have to use a factory, to get the dyn. proxy. All fine, but what
if you swap out nhibernate for something else and you don't need to use
the factory anymore. Doesn't that factory then look unnatural, because
you use 'new' for every other object instantiation?

The world isnt black/white. There are some good ideas floating around
and it's key to get familiar with these ideas, but it's also key to
understand where they come from and WHY A is good and B is bad in
context C, because good/bad is always context bound.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
Regards,
>
Matt Vaughn
>
>
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:Oc6dnXCRI7 CYuVHYnZ2dnUVZ_ o2vnZ2d@comcast .com...

You can also check out Rockford Lhotka's books if you want to know
more about Business Object ; he's very well-known in the field. I
have looked at them, but not read them. Deborah's book seemed a
lot more "hands-on" to me, and less theory.

Just my opinion.
Robin S.
---------------------------------
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message

news:qbWdnWcCwK HTvlHYnZ2dnUVZ_ syunZ2d@comcast .com...

If you have a subscription to Safari, you can see Deborah
Kurata's book online. I understand it has been made available,
or at least parts of it. Amazon says it's going to be available
2/21.
>
http://www.amazon.com/Objects-Visual...Microsoft-Tech
nology/dp/0321320492/sr=8-1/qid=1171006112/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-285
8380-8860814?ie=UTF8 &s=books
>
I can't even imagine that Microsoft would drop ADO.Net, at least
not in the next couple of years. Farther ahead than that, who
knows what they will do. They seem headed in the XML direction,
but I just don't see it for huge amounts of data. Plus, it would
hardly be in their best interest, considering how hard they have
worked to make SQLServer a viable alternative to Oracle. So
there has to be some way to transfer data back and forth to
SQLServer!
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in

message news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...

Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when
it's coming out.

I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have
already looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I
would like to do it myself and learn it better.

Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET
for good or there's no reason to panic :) ?



>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message

news:UcOdnelJlZ s09VfYnZ2dnUVZ_ veinZ2d@comcast .com...

Hi Penelope Dramas,
>
If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a
new book coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft
MVP) that shows exactly how to do that. I read it, and am
using that methodology. It's called "Doing Objects in
VB2005".
>
You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it
with business objects, but the data access is tighter
because you have more control over it.
>
And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who
uses strongly typed datasets. She still has her design in
3-layers, but her data layer passes back strongly typed
datasets for use in the UI.
>
She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures
and removes the table adapter because they only use stored
procedures. I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's
something I want to follow up on to find out.
>
So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
information will help in some way. Other people will
definitely have an opinion, I'm sure.
>
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-----------------------------------------------
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote

in message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

Hello,

I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an
old VB6 application.

I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask
couple of questions regarding data access as this
application is heavily data-centric around MSDE database.

Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
datasets/datatables for my classes?

This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's
correct way.

Custom Bus. Object:
- Longer time to develop/test it.
- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
- Extensible.

Datasets
- Faster/Easier.
- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.

I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing
WPF/Linq initiative and don't want to end up rewriting
business layer in 2-3 years to adjust it to current
framework.

Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Robin,

Have a look at the original question from the OP.

She is not asking about the benefit of business objects, she is asking about
the benefits of both.

By the way, what is against using ADONet in a multi layer design. (If you
say business rules, than you can make it short, than we agree).

Cor

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:k7-dnbjdE8Ib81PYnZ 2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@ comcast.com...

I've read the Sceppa book, but while it covers ADO.net and database access
and so forth in full, it's only related to business objects insofar as
storing the info after you've collected it. Technically, all that stuff
should be in one's data access layer anyway. It's definitely a great
book. I mostly use stored procedures and paramaterized queries, and he
definitely covers that.
>
I haven't read Bill's book, although I seem to keep visiting it at the
bookstore just to look at it. I haven't decided if I need it yet, so I
haven't bought it yet. Again, it's about SQLServer, etc., not how to
create a 3-layer application model.
>
Robin S.
------------------------------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2351zT6UT HHA.496@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .

>Robin,
>>

>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>>of their books are certainly exemplary.

>>
>Read the subject, you never can compare with only one factor.
>>
>:-)
>>
>Cor
>>
>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
>news:cpKdnVkLa eBslVPYnZ2dnUVZ _revnZ2d@comcas t.com...

>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But both
>>of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>
>>Robin S.
>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>>news:O0CNDkPT HHA.996@TK2MSFT NGP02.phx.gbl.. .
>>>Penelope,
>>>>
>>>If you think about buying Deborah's book, than certainly don't forget
>>>to buy the books from David and Bill (Sceppa and Vaughn). The last two
>>>are .Net specialists as long as .Net exist.
>>>>
>>>Cor
>>>>
>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom schreef in
>>>bericht news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...
>>>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>>>coming out.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>>>looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
>>>>do it myself and learn it better.
>>>>>
>>>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for
>>>>good or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>>>news:UcOdne lJlZs09VfYnZ2dn UVZ_veinZ2d@com cast.com...
>>>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new book
>>>>>coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that shows
>>>>>exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that methodology.
>>>>>It's called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>>>
>>>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>>>business objects, but the data access is tighter because you have
>>>>>more control over it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>>>strongly typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but
>>>>>her data layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the UI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored procedures.
>>>>>I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's something I want to
>>>>>follow up on to find out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>>>informatio n will help in some way. Other people will definitely have
>>>>>an opinion, I'm sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>>"Penelop e Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>>>applicati on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple of
>>>>>>questio ns regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>>>dataset s/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct
>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dataset s
>>>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>>>initiativ e and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in 2-3
>>>>>>years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[RobinS]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

Cor,

Gotcha. Well, my original post was pretty wishy-washy. I like using BO's
because it separates the data layer so well except where you load the BO's.

However, as I stated, another MVP does use strongly typed datasets, but
removes the table adapters and creates her own using ADO.Net.

I think either way is fine. Even though I use BO's, I still find it
necessary to completely understand ADO.Net, which is why I read Sceppa from
cover to cover, but maybe that's just because I'm compulsive, and once I
start something, I can't stop until I'm finished. ;-)

Deborah Kurata's book does cover setting up stored procedures to use when
updating your business objects, and how to set up tables and stuff like
that, enough to get you started. But if you want more information, using
Sceppa or Bill Vaughn's book is definitely a good idea.

So I think we can conclude that we are both right. :-D

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-----------------------------------------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:uB08%23feT HHA.4028@TK2MSF TNGP03.phx.gbl. ..

Robin,
>
Have a look at the original question from the OP.
>
She is not asking about the benefit of business objects, she is asking
about the benefits of both.
>
By the way, what is against using ADONet in a multi layer design. (If you
say business rules, than you can make it short, than we agree).
>
Cor
>
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:k7-dnbjdE8Ib81PYnZ 2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@ comcast.com...

>I've read the Sceppa book, but while it covers ADO.net and database
>access and so forth in full, it's only related to business objects
>insofar as storing the info after you've collected it. Technically, all
>that stuff should be in one's data access layer anyway. It's definitely
>a great book. I mostly use stored procedures and paramaterized queries,
>and he definitely covers that.
>>
>I haven't read Bill's book, although I seem to keep visiting it at the
>bookstore just to look at it. I haven't decided if I need it yet, so I
>haven't bought it yet. Again, it's about SQLServer, etc., not how to
>create a 3-layer application model.
>>
>Robin S.
>------------------------------------
>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>news:%2351zT6U THHA.496@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

>>Robin,
>>>
>>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But
>>>both of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>
>>Read the subject, you never can compare with only one factor.
>>>
>>:-)
>>>
>>Cor
>>>
>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.noneschreef in bericht
>>news:cpKdnVkL aeBslVPYnZ2dnUV Z_revnZ2d@comca st.com...
>>>Just to clarify, they are data guys, not Business Objects guys. But
>>>both of their books are certainly exemplary.
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
>>>news:O0CNDkP THHA.996@TK2MSF TNGP02.phx.gbl. ..
>>>>Penelope,
>>>>>
>>>>If you think about buying Deborah's book, than certainly don't forget
>>>>to buy the books from David and Bill (Sceppa and Vaughn). The last
>>>>two are .Net specialists as long as .Net exist.
>>>>>
>>>>Cor
>>>>>
>>>>"Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom schreef in
>>>>bericht news:uefNZl8SHH A.388@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>Thank you all for insight, I will buy that book feb 21 when it's
>>>>>coming out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think i will go with any code generators, we have already
>>>>>looked into DevExpress XPO as well as CodeSmith but I would like to
>>>>>do it myself and learn it better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Am I right when I'm thinking that Microsoft might drop ADO.NET for
>>>>>good or there's no reason to panic :) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
>>>>>news:UcOdn elJlZs09VfYnZ2d nUVZ_veinZ2d@co mcast.com...
>>>>>>Hi Penelope Dramas,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you want to rewrite it using Business Objects, there's a new
>>>>>>book coming out next month by Deborah Kurata (Microsoft MVP) that
>>>>>>shows exactly how to do that. I read it, and am using that
>>>>>>methodolo gy. It's called "Doing Objects in VB2005".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can kind of go either way. I think it's harder to do it with
>>>>>>busines s objects, but the data access is tighter because you have
>>>>>>more control over it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet I know of another MVP leading a large project who uses
>>>>>>strongl y typed datasets. She still has her design in 3-layers, but
>>>>>>her data layer passes back strongly typed datasets for use in the
>>>>>>UI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>She generates the datasets herself from the stored procedures and
>>>>>>removes the table adapter because they *only* use stored
>>>>>>procedure s. I'm not exactly certain how she does that, it's
>>>>>>somethi ng I want to follow up on to find out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So I don't have a definitive answer for you, but maybe this
>>>>>>informati on will help in some way. Other people will definitely
>>>>>>have an opinion, I'm sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>>Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
>>>>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>"Penelo pe Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-transportDOTcom wrote in
>>>>>>message news:eBhk8WwSHH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
>>>>>>>applicat ion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple
>>>>>>>of questions regarding data access as this application is heavily
>>>>>>>data-centric around MSDE database.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
>>>>>>>datase ts/datatables for my classes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct
>>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Custom Bus. Object:
>>>>>>>- Longer time to develop/test it.
>>>>>>>- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>- Extensible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Datase ts
>>>>>>>- Faster/Easier.
>>>>>>>- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
>>>>>>>initiati ve and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in
>>>>>>>2-3 years to adjust it to current framework.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[susiedba@hotmail.com]

Re: business objects vs. datasets

business objects and datasets are both a waste of time

simple scripting and keep your data in a database

and use datareaders; datasets are ssssslllllllllo ooooooowwwwwww





On Feb 7, 2:17 pm, "Penelope Dramas" <penelopeDOTdra masATpro-
transportDOTcom wrote:

Hello,
>
I'm in a front of very serious .net redesign/rewrite of an old VB6
application.
>
I had been asked to make it .NET 2.0 and would like to ask couple of
questions regarding data access as this application is heavily data-centric
around MSDE database.
>
Would it be better to use custom business objects or extend
datasets/datatables for my classes?
>
This is what I'm thinking and just wanted to know if it's correct way.
>
Custom Bus. Object:
- Longer time to develop/test it.
- Loosely coupled with DataLayer.
- Extensible.
>
Datasets
- Faster/Easier.
- Tightly coupled with DataLayer.
>
I'm afraid that Microsoft is dropping ADO.NET and pushing WPF/Linq
initiative and don't want to end up rewriting business layer in 2-3 years to
adjust it to current framework.
>
Would like to hear your opinion and experiences...
>
Thanks ...