Comments for foofish.org http://foofish.org/blog the word "pragmatic" sounds funny if you think about it... Mon, 10 May 2010 09:33:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Piglet http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-3851 Piglet Mon, 10 May 2010 09:33:34 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-3851 A tip: Before making a decision Nhibernate or Entity Framework 4.0 read this post (with ALL its comments). It sure helped me: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2010/01/05/nhibernate-vs.-entity-framework-4.0.aspx A tip: Before making a decision Nhibernate or Entity Framework 4.0 read this post (with ALL its comments). It sure helped me:

http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2010/01/05/nhibernate-vs.-entity-framework-4.0.aspx

]]> Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Vanesa Barbosa http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-2525 Vanesa Barbosa Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:21:35 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2525 Interesting blogs. Our development team must make the decision with VS2010, Nhibernate advise using? Interesting blogs. Our development team must make the decision with VS2010, Nhibernate advise using?

]]> Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Juan http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-2238 Juan Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:35:45 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2238 Hi everybody. We had to make a choice some months ago, regarding the ORM mapping framework for our new project, it had around some 100 tables. Well, we tested like some 6 ORMs!, including EF. The fear we had with third party ORMs was that you leave something very importante in some other's hand and the possibility that the product could become obsolet due to a not more supported or bad supported product. Our EF team did a great job in our detached scenario using WCFs and EF in both client & server sides. After two months of hard work we made everything work fine using a special class for attaching detached entities (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/attachobjectgraph.aspx) now we have a faster development process due to sepparating our UI and BO layers from client to wcf server and created a generic Client service layer and WCF service layer for any kind of project, so we just add some dlls references and the communication channel is done! well, what else I can say. after some hard work, using .net 3.5, we are using EF in a detached scenario very elegantly (not using mar property as modified, hehe). Hi everybody. We had to make a choice some months ago, regarding the ORM mapping framework for our new project, it had around some 100 tables. Well, we tested like some 6 ORMs!, including EF. The fear we had with third party ORMs was that you leave something very importante in some other’s hand and the possibility that the product could become obsolet due to a not more supported or bad supported product.
Our EF team did a great job in our detached scenario using WCFs and EF in both client & server sides. After two months of hard work we made everything work fine using a special class for attaching detached entities

(http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/attachobjectgraph.aspx)

now we have a faster development process due to sepparating our UI and BO layers from client to wcf server and created a generic Client service layer and WCF service layer for any kind of project, so we just add some dlls references and the communication channel is done!

well, what else I can say. after some hard work, using .net 3.5, we are using EF in a detached scenario very elegantly (not using mar property as modified, hehe).

]]> Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Arash http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-1684 Arash Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:15:52 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-1684 Look at Mindscape's LightSpeed product. It's a very easy to use ORM with full LINQ support, meaning your LINQ query will be translated into an appropriate SQL query. I don't think NHIbernate has that yet. Look at Mindscape’s LightSpeed product. It’s a very easy to use ORM with full LINQ support, meaning your LINQ query will be translated into an appropriate SQL query. I don’t think NHIbernate has that yet.

]]> Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Dmitri http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-1146 Dmitri Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:13:19 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-1146 What did it for me was the fact that Entity Framework didn't auto-generate proxy methods for my stored procedures. Linq2SQL does it just fine, so why not EF? Also the UI support for EF in VS is really not good enough - just try adding a foreign key _after_ you've created the model, and you'll find that you have to delete the reference field manually, even after updating the model via the wizard. Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards FluentNHibernate. My guess is anyone looking for an ORM now really has no choice. When VS2010 and the new EF comes out, well, we shall see. For new projects EF might be suitable then, but I doubt existing ones will go from NH to EF. What did it for me was the fact that Entity Framework didn’t auto-generate proxy methods for my stored procedures. Linq2SQL does it just fine, so why not EF? Also the UI support for EF in VS is really not good enough – just try adding a foreign key _after_ you’ve created the model, and you’ll find that you have to delete the reference field manually, even after updating the model via the wizard.

Right now, I’m leaning heavily towards FluentNHibernate. My guess is anyone looking for an ORM now really has no choice. When VS2010 and the new EF comes out, well, we shall see. For new projects EF might be suitable then, but I doubt existing ones will go from NH to EF.

]]> Comment on NHibernate and Entity Framework Battle it Out in the Real World by Phantom http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-959 Phantom Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:03:24 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=57#comment-959 I have faced similar objections when recommending NHibernate. It seems that people conclude that using an open source product vs a "supported product" from Microsoft is best. I am currently working with a team of developers where one of them "Loves!!!" to use datasets as the business layer. I gotta tell you, this guy knows datasets inside out and he can do anything he wants with them, but he always has to start a solution design with an ERD and the finished solution is tightly coupled with the database and he has a hard time solving problems in business terms that are not database related. When I walk into a project one of the things that I dislike is that there is always somebody that created golden rules such as "All calls to the database need to be with a stored procedure" I have faced similar objections when recommending NHibernate. It seems that people conclude that using an open source product vs a “supported product” from Microsoft is best.

I am currently working with a team of developers where one of them “Loves!!!” to use datasets as the business layer. I gotta tell you, this guy knows datasets inside out and he can do anything he wants with them, but he always has to start a solution design with an ERD and the finished solution is tightly coupled with the database and he has a hard time solving problems in business terms that are not database related.

When I walk into a project one of the things that I dislike is that there is always somebody that created golden rules such as “All calls to the database need to be with a stored procedure”

]]> Comment on Psychology of a “pretty good” programmer by Late responder http://foofish.org/blog/?p=62&cpage=1#comment-930 Late responder Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:42:43 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=62#comment-930 Being a consultant, I see this all the time. My company prides itself in hiring and retaining intelligent and experienced "software guys" (am i the only one who dislikes the terms engineer and programmer?). However, these guys are all about the here and now. I don't know if its the consulting mind set, the inability to plan for the future, or if they just don't give a damn since they will not be there in a year (next guys problem). Being a consultant, I see this all the time. My company prides itself in hiring and retaining intelligent and experienced “software guys” (am i the only one who dislikes the terms engineer and programmer?). However, these guys are all about the here and now. I don’t know if its the consulting mind set, the inability to plan for the future, or if they just don’t give a damn since they will not be there in a year (next guys problem).

]]> Comment on DDD and Aggregates by ajepst http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-853 ajepst Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:51:53 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47#comment-853 Jake, I'm certainly not an expert on DDD, it's something I'm feeling my way through, and I'm probably misinterpreting things here and there. I agree that the wording of saying you edit the order, not the line item is probably better. Interesting point about Entity and Value objects being determined in the context-I'll have to think about that. Jake, I’m certainly not an expert on DDD, it’s something I’m feeling my way through, and I’m probably misinterpreting things here and there. I agree that the wording of saying you edit the order, not the line item is probably better. Interesting point about Entity and Value objects being determined in the context-I’ll have to think about that.

]]> Comment on DDD and Aggregates by Jake http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-852 Jake Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:24:20 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47#comment-852 Why do you need to "edit the line item" through an Order? LineItem should be an value object which means you do not need to change it. LineItem is a part of an Order so when you "edit the line item", you don't edit the item itself you edit the Order. If you meant "edit the line item" as an admin, who needs to have line item info up-to-date, it's an Entity not a value object. but this time we're talking about different context. Entity and Value objects are determined in the context. Why do you need to “edit the line item” through an Order? LineItem should be an value object which means you do not need to change it. LineItem is a part of an Order so when you “edit the line item”, you don’t edit the item itself you edit the Order.
If you meant “edit the line item” as an admin, who needs to have line item info up-to-date, it’s an Entity not a value object. but this time we’re talking about different context. Entity and Value objects are determined in the context.

]]> Comment on DDD and Aggregates by ajepst http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-848 ajepst Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:40:42 +0000 http://foofish.org/blog/?p=47#comment-848 Take this all with a grain of salt, since I haven't gotten to finishing the book and am not sure what Evans says on the matter, but I've considered this a bit since I originally wrote this post. Upon looking at this post later, I think that if it's valid to edit a line item truly by itself, maybe that line item is an aggregate. If not, it really should probably be done through the order. I don't think you can get away from the LineItemID usage at least a bit (as that's all you have at the web level), but I think working with it through the Order is the lesser evil. You can pass both the OrderID and LineItemID in the URL-this could be very nice with a REST format (maybe /orders/15/lines/3/ ) Then you might have a method on Order that takes a line ID and iterates for the matching child in the collection of lines. It's a little weird to work with the ID at all, but I think it's the best compromise. In this case, LineItem really IS a child of Order-you'll always go through the Order page first to go to the LineItem page, so you'll already have the ID, just stick it in the URL. And if do you find yourself working with LineItems when you don't have the Order handy, maybe LineItem is an aggregate root. Take this all with a grain of salt, since I haven’t gotten to finishing the book and am not sure what Evans says on the matter, but I’ve considered this a bit since I originally wrote this post. Upon looking at this post later, I think that if it’s valid to edit a line item truly by itself, maybe that line item is an aggregate. If not, it really should probably be done through the order. I don’t think you can get away from the LineItemID usage at least a bit (as that’s all you have at the web level), but I think working with it through the Order is the lesser evil. You can pass both the OrderID and LineItemID in the URL-this could be very nice with a REST format (maybe /orders/15/lines/3/ ) Then you might have a method on Order that takes a line ID and iterates for the matching child in the collection of lines. It’s a little weird to work with the ID at all, but I think it’s the best compromise. In this case, LineItem really IS a child of Order-you’ll always go through the Order page first to go to the LineItem page, so you’ll already have the ID, just stick it in the URL. And if do you find yourself working with LineItems when you don’t have the Order handy, maybe LineItem is an aggregate root.

]]>