Well my personal opinion of n-tier is that the class that gets created out of the database shouldn't leave the 1st (last) tier
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Grant Molloy <graken...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just had a quick look at Massive and Dapper.. Both appear to use the > MS.Net 4.0 System.Dynamic namespace to do their "dirty" work.. Looks > powerful.. MSDN Mag had an article on this not so long ago, was a good read > and looks very powerful. > > Massive looks like it's basically attaching the DAL layer to every entity. > > Is this assumption correct ?? > What's people opinion on doing this ?? > It seams to go against the theory of n-tier dev if the db connection is > within the entity object. Is this what people are doing ? > > > > > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Michael Minutillo < > michael.minuti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Have you looked at https://github.com/robconery/massive >> >> <https://github.com/robconery/massive>This seems to fit what the OP was >> after. It is just a way to translate SQL <=> C# dynamic. I haven't used it. >> StackOverflow does something similar for some of it's hardcore optimization >> stuff but I can't recall what they're library is called >> >> >> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Mark Ryall <mark.ry...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm confused. >>> >>> Do we agree on what is meant by 'runtime'? >>> >>> It sounds like you're both referring to compile time code generation of >>> static types. >>> >>> I thought the original question was relating to orm implementations that >>> can detect and cope with schema changes without the need to deploy a new >>> version of your application. >>> >>> Apologies if I've misunderstood. >>> >>> On 08/05/2011, at 6:24 PM, Nathan Schultz <milish...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My solution can create classes based on the LINQ2SQL active records, and >>> CRUD <http://ASP.NET>ASP.NET screens for those. I only really use it for >>> Admin / Reference screens though, since your object model and database >>> schema are often fundamentally at odds (since they [should] represent >>> different things). >>> >>> As for Grant's Stored Proc idea - my old code template schema's did a >>> similar thing - and it is slightly faster, and there are security advantages >>> (individual stored procs can be given different rights). But I'm hooked to >>> the flexibility that LINQ provides, and the bells and whistles like lazy >>> loading. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Grant Molloy < <graken...@gmail.com> >>> graken...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Performance nat an issue.. Test harness proves its quicker than linq >>>> for same query (single and multi record). it also returns multi >>>> resultsets with good speed too. 10 result sets from 1 stored proc in >>>> 20 millisecs. >>>> >>>> On 5/8/11, Mark Ryall < <mark.ry...@gmail.com>mark.ry...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I've heard of a few projects that needed to do something like this >>>> (mingle >>>> > is one that comes to mind) where the structure of your entities can be >>>> > modified at runtime. It gets really complicated very quickly - >>>> especially >>>> > in getting the implementation to perform adequately. >>>> > >>>> > This seems a better fit for a non relational database such as mongodb, >>>> > ravendb, couchdb etc. if that's an available option. >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Anthony < <asale...@tpg.com.au> >>>> asale...@tpg.com.au> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Anyone aware of a dynamic orm software. Been using llblgen for years >>>> and >>>> >> finding the need for a dynamic orm. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> I find that some database create custom fields etc at runtime which >>>> do not >>>> >> become visible to the ORM until I re-apply the ORM schema. If I >>>> >> re-apply >>>> >> orm to a db with customer fields, then it makes the orm code >>>> specific to >>>> >> one environment…. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> regards >>>> >> >>>> >> Anthony (*12QWERNB*) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from my mobile device >>>> >>> >>> >> >
