LINQ vs 3-tier vs binding

[Dean Slindee]

I'm confused. After all these years of promoting 3-tier architecture, isn't
LINQ moving us back to a 2-tier architecture (no stored procedures?).
Are there scenarios where LINQ would be a better architecture than a
"legacy" 3-tier?

Another question, concerning binding: Would LINQ be used in addition to
binding, instead of binding, or coexist within an application?

Not inferring any bias with the above, just curious...

Thanks,
Dean S

[Steve Gerrard]

Re: LINQ vs 3-tier vs binding

Dean Slindee wrote:

I'm confused. After all these years of promoting 3-tier
architecture, isn't LINQ moving us back to a 2-tier architecture (no
stored procedures?). Are there scenarios where LINQ would be a better
architecture than a
"legacy" 3-tier?
>
Another question, concerning binding: Would LINQ be used in addition
to binding, instead of binding, or coexist within an application?
>
Not inferring any bias with the above, just curious...
>

None with the reply, either. :)

My view is that some activities are better done on the client, without a round
trip to a server. This depends on how much data you grab in the first place, but
if is a fair amount - perhaps a master record with 200 records in various detail
tables, for instance - it can be useful to create things like a grouping with
totals on the fly, rather than playing ping pong with a server. I would keep the
serious stuff on the server, but do smaller ad hoc things on the client. Also,
LINQ can work on things besides dataviews, which may be handy. As for binding,
you can bind to whatever you like, so you can make a new table, use LINQ or an
old fashioned loop to fill it, and then bind that to a grid or whatever.

So yes to all three, I say.

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: LINQ vs 3-tier vs binding

Dean,

I'm confused. After all these years of promoting 3-tier architecture,

Who did that. In my idea not Microsoft, there seems to be a large group who
want all kind of retro architecture and Microsoft sells seldom no.

Cor

[Spam Catcher]

Re: LINQ vs 3-tier vs binding

"Dean Slindee" <slindee@charte r.netwrote in
news:58A9851A-53FC-4013-BC72-2C4C6A6D17F2@mi crosoft.com:

I'm confused. After all these years of promoting 3-tier architecture,
isn't LINQ moving us back to a 2-tier architecture (no stored
procedures?). Are there scenarios where LINQ would be a better
architecture than a
"legacy" 3-tier?

Linq can be used for client side sorting without a roundtrip back to the
server. It's compatible with a 3-tier achitecture.

As for stored procedures, that's a personal preference. Sometimes it's
better not to use SPs because all SQL is contained within your application
and there is less depedencies to deploy. If you use an OR/M tool SPs are
often redundant especially for CRUD type functions.

--
spamhoneypot@ro gers.com (Do not e-mail)