Update on LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities Roadmap

Article
10/29/2008

Since the release of LINQ to SQL and the Entity Framework, many questions have been raised about the future plans for the technologies and how they will relate to each other long term.
During this week of PDC we are now at a point, with the announcement of Visual Studio 10 and the .NET Framework 4.0, that we can provide more clarity on our direction.

We have seen great momentum with LINQ in the last year. In .NET Framework 3.5 we released several LINQ providers, including LINQ to SQL which set the bar for a great programming model with LINQ over relational databases. In .NET 3.5 SP1, we followed up that investment with the Entity Framework enabling developers to build more advanced scenarios and to use LINQ against any database including SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, MySQL, etc.

We’re making significant investments in the Entity Framework such that as of .NET 4.0 the Entity Framework will be our recommended data access solution for LINQ to relational scenarios. We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well.

Tim Mallalieu
Program Manager, LINQ to SQL and Entity Framework

Comments

Anonymous
October 29, 2008
PingBack from http://www.insurancesitesfind.com/?p=6939
Anonymous
October 29, 2008
So you guys are actually admittingthat Linq To SQL is a dead end ? Thanks a lot. Linq To SQL has taht 'it just works' attitude to it and is the underpinning of our new project. I coud never ever persuade my boss to go to Entity Framework. And if you're really listening to your customers regarding Linq To SQL, we'll ga and read up all posts on the internet. I think there are plenty of things we'd like (I for one have a long wish list, with on number one a sync tool for the designer). There as a time that MS aimed at the small and medium sized businesses, and Linq To SQL is perfect for those, never forget the basis of your success ...
Anonymous
October 29, 2008
Can we have a SharePoint Entity Framework provider, please? please? ;)
Anonymous
October 29, 2008
A appreciate the desire to have a single 'Linq to DB' framework, but I hope the proposed Entity Framework will offer full Linq To Sql compatibility? Allowing a painless transition to people who don't need all the extra muscle of the framework. I'd rather do OR mapping myself, and use Linq To SQL as a simple way to grab the data only. EF is current a long way from what I'd need!
Anonymous
October 29, 2008
I agree with John. LINQ to SQL offers a great light weight data access option with a number of key extensibility points and 'get-out' options when it doesn't provide the required functionality. It is fine if MS have bigger plans for the Entity Framework and I'm glad to hear LINQ to SQL will continue to be developed and supported. You say you will listen to community feedback and evolve the product accordingly but what we lack at the moment is an official list of potential features, like a vNext roadmap. I think at least knowledge that something like this is in the pipeline will ease developers anxieties regarding their investment in LINQ to SQL.
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
@Jens, The number one item on your wish-list is here: http://www.huagati.com/dbmltools/
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
What I want is a light version of EF that does what LINQ to SQL does. It should enable the same simple usage scenario I have with LINQ to SQL, but it should use the same logical model and API as EF. Most importantly it needs to be fully compatible with newer MS technologies that are planning to build on top of EF down the road. The simpler usage scenario is especially useful to web developers... Most web apps, even the large ones, really don't need THAT much abstraction between the relational schema and the logical one. We don't need all the fancy mappings, the inheritance, and other advanced stuff that EF provides. Sure, we don't care if it CAN do all those abstract things... we just don't want those features getting in our way, complicating how we use the entities, or putting shackles on what we can do or how it performs because some enterprise edge case scenario has a conflicting requirement. Most web programmers just want a simple way to model our data and automate the persistence stuff so we can unleash LINQ in our apps without having to spend too much time worried about how to push data around behind the scenes. But we don't want to be left out of the loop with future tech that builds on the EF and LINQ to Entities... and it looks like MS has a LOT of stuff building on EF in the works. Oh!, Please give us a conversion tool to help move existing LINQ to SQL apps over to LINQ to Entities and EF.... Right now EF just isn't ready so many of us are sticking with LINQ to SQL until we can see if the next version of EF and LINQ to Entities is better. It would be nice if we can be assured that we aren't going to be stuck facing a massive manual code migration down the road.
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
Based on the recent announcement on the ADO.NET Team Blog : "We’re making significant investments
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
Based on the recent announcement on the ADO.NET Team Blog : "We’re making significant investments
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
"We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well." I really hope this is the case, if it is then I'd recommend considering the following two links: http://codebetter.com/blogs/david.hayden/archive/2008/10/30/linq-to-sql-gets-kicked-to-the-curb-needs-a-good-home.aspx http://codebetter.com/blogs/ian_cooper/archive/2008/07/02/showing-some-support-for-linq-to-sql.aspx
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
Bom, já têm um tempinho que nós vemos um enfoque maior no Entity Framework que no Linq
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
This makes no sense. Are you actually listening to customers?
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
I guess, they spent all the money on silly Vista ads!
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
LINQ to SQL is too good to killed like this, At least put it out on codeplex
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
Hi, "We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well." Can you please show me anybody from the team bloging about LINQ to SQL? Or discussing anything with community? Giving some responses? Doing any development after 3.5? DamienG entered LINQ to SQL team 4/1/2008. After that you will see only 3 notes about LINQ at his blog... Why is not possible for you to do some support? And the main: "why there is never any response"? You publish "Update on LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities Roadmap" 10/29 - every information about roadmap is important everytime. And look - two day later it is discussed here and on different blogs - but there is NO RESPONSE from you or anybody else from your team. I don't think that you are showing respect to your customers which invests into your technologies
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
Sounds like everybody is excited a little bit! I am not a Linq to SQL fan but I admit it is a cool and very light and easy to use. So why ADO.NET team simplify this us! Are you going to continue developing and extending LINQ to SQL or not? It is only one year old technology if it is killed now better than being killed after few years! I am not asking to abandon it of course I am just wondering what is going on? puting the project on CodePlex as open source would be great idea of course. Entity Framewok is much more advanced, designed to support different DB providers. Why I would use LINQ to SQL while I have something similar (but LINQ to Entities is not as powerful as LINQ to SQL) that support different Databases?! The only reason I can see was at the time of LINQ to SQL there was not EF, it was Beta and that is why no body really paied attention to it. And in EF v1 still LINQ to SQL is much better than LINQ to Entities. So the post need to be clarified LINQ to SQL will remain and last forever or will die?!
Anonymous
October 30, 2008
LINQ To SQL supports important domain first modelling ideas like persistence ignorance that were woefully lacking from EF. It is a shame that it is not raised as the solution for customers who want that option more. It is tragic that the EF team did not pick up on the design understanding shown by the L2S team. It is tragic that the Data Services team continue to mischaracterize L2S as a RAD tool. It is tragic that support for features like fine-grained object models and exposed provider model, trumped as key advantages of EF, will not be added to L2S. The journey from L2S to be a ral competitor to Nhiberate is much shorter than the journey for EF. It remains the best offering from MS in this space. If you want to know what I believe you could do to support the product, please follow this link: http://codebetter.com/blogs/ian_cooper/archive/2008/07/01/architecting-linq-to-sql-part-10.aspx
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Linq to SQL is indeed one of the most useful tools in my toolbelt, but I can't say the same with EF. EF is a great example that if you don't listen your community & customers, you are going to get no confidence. Microsoft should have taken some lessons out of this already. What we need is, support for other models than TPH and enabled provider model, and that's it. Why doesn't anybody hear us again ?
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
What is missing from Tim's post above is something along the lines of: "We have learnt a lesson from the EFv1 fiasco and so we're actually in the process of integrating all the goodies from Linq-to-SQL (copying-and-pasting code) into EFv2.". He didn't say that, but he demoed several features during his PDC "Entity Framework Futures" session that look like they have been copied-and-pasted straight from L2S into EF. Watch this if you can spare 90 minutes and you'll see what I mean: http://channel9.msdn.com/pdc2008/TL20/
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Interesting blog post about it . And some related information on Stackoverflow posts . The basic gist appears to be comments made on the ado.net blog that state the Entity Framework is the only thing getting major developer time for Visual Studio 2010
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
"We have learnt a lesson from the EFv1 fiasco and so we're actually in the process of integrating all the goodies from Linq-to-SQL (copying-and-pasting code) into EFv2.". If MS needs to learn from its own failures rather than learning from others then thats OK. Much slower than if they'd asked people, looked at existing practices/patterns but probably a lot more fun for the people involved. Even accepting that though putting those features into EF is, in my view, not necessarily as good as having L2S. Depends on whether you think the whole EF foundation is sound, and I've heard nothing so far to make me think it is. What bothers me most is that rather than learning about things like DDD/SOA/REST/TDD and then seeing how they can apply and improve on them they instead constantly try to come up with the next huge paradigm shift. Most of the time though its flavoured with the same old data-drag-drop style thinking:

DDD - Drag tables onto designer
REST - Generate resources from DB
SOA - Entity services/SOAP/WSDL
Web Design - Bind tables/datasets to controls
EIP/SOA - Drag and drop integration with Biztalk
DSLs - Graphical DSLs (drag-drop, you get the idea) Does seem like some teams are listening though, look at MVC/JQuery on the Web side but thats more about MS listening and following rather than trying to drive the entire industry down some path that Redmond have decided is appropriate.

Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
An interesting post has arrived on the Ado.net team blog with regard to the future of LINQ to SQL. Although not coming outright and saying it, it seems that LINQ to SQL is likely to be deprecated in t ...
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
I think this is a smart move. Having two things try to do essentially the same thing is just room for confusion. Do we use A and all it's simplicity of client programming or do we use B because it actually works with our more complicated persistence layer needs? People trying to make that decision are in a lose-lose. Merging the two products into one hopefully means we'll get the best of both worlds.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
why wait or depend on MS, diy maybe? idk
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
EF is a far superior product, but it does not come close to nHibernate. So does Linq To Sql dying bother me? No, I say good riddance to the POS. Why all these shops are scared to use anything that is not from MS is beyond me...
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The End of LINQ To SQL? Today I read a few blog posts that were published regarding  the announcement
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
"EF is a far superior product" WS* star is far superior to REST according to one school of thought too though, choices. L2S seemed to me like a good foundation, a good v1 product.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Good thing we just invested a lot of time and money into dead-end tech! There is no way we will touch EF after this...
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
This is my last post on this subject, I promise, and unfortunately it has to be a little more blunt as
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
This is my last post on this subject, I promise, and unfortunately it has to be a little more blunt as
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The team is simply out of the touch with Linq2SQL users. Hence there is the plea. Here is one feedback. If it's a burden to have one MS team develop on two products, either have another team working on Linq2SQL, or release the technology out to the community. As a Linq2Sql user, I am very disappointed if MS keeps it closed without significant new developments. The technology is too good to be killed, the investment from everyone should be preserved. As one of the customers, I WANT LINQ2SQL to be continuously developed with significant new features, no matter who is going to do the work.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Disapointing... When you say to all your friends that "Microsoft is changing" they came with this. Well, time to move back to Subsonic...
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
I've met a lot of smart people at MS but the ado.net team is definitely not among them. thanks for deceiving me.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
It has been obvious via the posts that there was an internal spat and the vision of entity framework was somehow threatened by Linq to SQL. It is a shame that this resulted in killing the "it just works" solution. As a customer Linq to SQL is straight forward and gets the job done. Entity has another learning curve and requires me to manage more things than I necessary want. Unless you plan on making entity framework EASIER and QUICKER to impliment than Linq to SQL, you are making a mistake.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The simple fact that you MS people keep stressing your 'significant investment' in EF whenever the subject of LINQ to SQL comes up undermines any credibility you might have to the subject. You sound like political advisors on the evening news trying to dodge questions that will make your candidate look bad. We are not fools you know. We realize that there must have been some kind of internal turf war going on and somehow you guys won and are now pushing your next ill conceived, over designed, behemoth down our throats. So, great, some other yet-to-be-named MS monstrosity is going to be tied to this one, so that we can sink even faster with two boat anchors instead of one. LINQ to SQL is still the best choice. It is simple and elegant and nearly perfect except for a few minor features and other providers. Yet instead of investing where appropriate, you invest a whole lot more for a train wreck. Is there no accountability at Microsoft? You can't be drunk on the stock anymore, so it must be something else. All I can image is oversized egos need oversized projects. Get a clue and talk to REAL customers, not just the corporate muscle heads that approve purchase orders for SQL Server.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
If you do dead end the project, you should MSPL it so the community can have it and do what they want with it.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
I certainly agree with all the comments that LINQ to SQL is a simple, elegant and extensible solution that just works. It has a lot of potential. It definitely should be released to the community if Microsoft does not want to support it. If LINQ to SQL were to support multiple database providers, ability to use multiple databases (at least on the same SQL server) and had value object support, it would have been an excellent ORM. I'm not going to use Entity Framework; at least not until it gets a lot more lightweight and be persistent ignorant. I'd rather go with NHibernate 2.1 which is going to support LINQ.
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
本文翻译自Tim Mallalieu, Program Manager, LINQ to SQL and Entity Framework 在ADO.NET Team Blog 上的文章。在.NET 4.0，我们将对Entity Framework 做出显著的投入，推荐Entity Framework 作为LINQ对关系数据库的数据访问解决方案。同时，我们正在倾听用户对LINQ to SQL的意见，同时基于来自社区的想法，继续发展LINQ to SQL。
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Linq to Sql is dead. Did you abstract well?
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
Elisa, Why should we trust that Entity Framework will be supported in the future? When the ADO.NET team decides on a new technology in a year or two, then Entity Framework will be tossed aside as well. How can MS platform developers trust you after this? Ori
Anonymous
October 31, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
Negli ultimi giorni la notizia sono rimbalzate. Forse troppo. Ad una prima lettura non mi era sembrato
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
Wow. After spending much frustration using the EF in a project, I finally realized that it was a shoddy, have baked product and converted over to L2SQL. L2SQL has been a pleasure to work with especially the tool support and extensibility. I guess its time to switch over to NHibernate...
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
It appears to me that there is room for both technologies at the current time and into the future. For the developers who develop using sql direct to the database and only for sql server then Linq-to-sql is the obvious choice. For developers who develop in large IT shops that require stored procs for everything and a much larger base of connections then I believe that the Entity Framework will be best for them. Fear not that if Microsoft stops development and support for Link-To-SQL in the future I believe there will still be a number of independent developers picking up the mantle and developing L2S into open source. I also have confidence that Microsoft will place this into Open Source if they are not continuing development. However, as advice to Microsoft it appears that the LinQ-to-SQL technologies more closely utilizes the same predicates as LinQ-To-Entities . I for one will never go back to anything other than the LinQ strategies, predicates and projections I am currently utilizing. Let's face it the comparer class combined with Except, Intersect, Union and Distinct makes the use of a backend database provider agnostic. After all, it is cheaper to have several middleware servers than even one additional SQL Server. Good luck on EF but I for one will continue using the Join concepts of LinQ in my middleware servers.
Anonymous
November 01, 2008
Linq to Sql is an inefficient, bloated pile of poop. Great great for scipt kiddies and those who can't write their own queries, though. DBA's everywhere will party hardy if it gets dropped.
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
This is very disappointing for anyone who has made an investment in learning and utilising LINQ to SQL. LINK to SQL has a major advantage in that it is very lightweight and easily accessible for people who do not need the extra mapping functions of the EF or nHibernate.
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
We also have engineered LINQ based solutions for both small and large companies based on LINQ assuming MS finally had provided a stable ORM solution. This is looking to be a wrong assumption! How can MS pull the rug out from folks who have now make significant investments in this new technology!? How can MS abandon something that works perfectly fine and after so many years of marketing hype? Worse yet is to leave LINQ to SQL adopter's hanging without a clear concise indication of future direction. We've been burned enough in the past with the flip-flops that most of us now anticipate the worst, which is that LINQ to SQL development will stop, and effectively phased out through lack of support in new products and platforms. Behavior like this is what pushes people away from MS and towards the many alternatives...LAMP here I come.
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
What do you think the following post from ADO.NET team blogs says? http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
We have been very happy with Linq to Sql and have deployed a few solutions already. It is really disappointing that we don't have a clear roadmap from Microsoft that outlines the future of Linq To SQL. For one, I would like to see providers for other popular database technologies such as mySQL. If EF is the future then I can only request that Microsoft release a series of practical migration guides that outline best practices for migrating projects that use Linq to SQL.
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
Uh, hello the great thing about Linq to SQL was the fact that it is integrated! Let's not criticize others for there skill level since you were there once, eh?
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
Now I have full confidence that my decision to adopt NHibernate for my whole team is a right one. Other than CLR and ASP.NET, I won't trust any other team under the .Net Framework umbrella.
Anonymous
November 02, 2008
I.m dissapointed If this blog means dead for Linq to Sql, I'm not going to use EF. In addition, in the future I'll not jump into any MS proposed technology, untill it's mature enough and widely accepted
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
After Microsoft killed it’s the best product FoxPro - I was in shock. What can I use the next? Fortunately, Microsoft introduced LINQ in .NET 3.5. It was a big relief for me and thousands other developers who need simple, fast and reliable solutions for our clients in RAD development... Now you are killing LINQ... I believe decision already has been made. We can only beg ADO.NET team to do it more "human friendly" and transparent for working with data as much as possible. Please, do it... I will pray for your success and wisdom...
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
"listening to the community"... so you mean EF will be just like vista? wondeful. i'm just getting into LINQ, and it blows NHibernate out of the water as far as learning curve is concerned. would hate to have to go back.
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
From the examples I've seen of EF, this lets us go back to writing sql-like statements inside strings instead of writing code.
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
几个国外大牛对ADO.NET小组发布文章的评论。和大家分享。
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
A bit late, but it was still in my drafts folder, I just had to finish it. Timothy Mallalieu presented
Anonymous
November 03, 2008
I hope the new version of EF supports detached(offline) object states
Anonymous
November 05, 2008
Man, I'm still lovin' ado.net 2.0! I have invested some time and money into Linq2Sql, and I would hate to see it go. I think I can still take one of my books back to the store. I feel like I may have burned some money, but I do not feel burned by the ado.net team. You guys rock.
Anonymous
November 05, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 05, 2008
When you opened up your Visual Studio 2008, you may have seen the ASP.net News on the Start Page promoting
Anonymous
November 05, 2008
Vakar ADO.NET komandas blogā atradu interesantu rakstu par LINQ to SQL un LINQ to Entities nākotnes plāniem
Anonymous
November 06, 2008
I always get the same question about the future of LINQ to SQL. Finally the ADO.NET Team, which is supporting
Anonymous
November 06, 2008
I really hope you continue to devote resources to Linq to Sql - the posts and comments make it really unclear what 'evolve the product based on feedback' means and make me nervous about its future. Maybe sometime in the future you can evolve the Entity Framework so that it is as light/simple as Linq to Sql (wow, that sounds like a serious challenge) - but the tough detail is that Linq to Sql is good for lightweight use NOW (generate with SqlMetal, extend with partial classes, query via Linq -> awesome) and is attractive and functional enough it is being used and deployed! For me Linq to Sql gives a beautiful/light/quick way to get great/easy db access that I would normally hand write sql for and maybe write quick DAL classes for - it is NOT subbing for nHibernate or other complete ORM products. Hard to imageine how ties to the Entity Framework help me quickly make a lightweight DAL for a simple application. I hope Linq to Sql is evolved, supported and a first class technology going forward. CM
Anonymous
November 06, 2008
I too am disappointed with this decision as we are heavily invested in LINQ to SQL in such a way that makes transitioning to LINQ to Entities impossible, due to L2E’s lack of flexibility and subpar support for advanced SQL generation. I really hope that you do listen to the community and realize that for many of us LINQ to SQL provides an alternative yet valuable and lightweight way to access SQL data when a full-blown ORM is not desired (or when someone else’s idea of what an ORM should be doesn’t match our needs). In this regard I don’t view LINQ to SQL as a competitor to LINQ to Entities but rather as an alternative for those who want a solution that is lightweight and flexible with superior close to the metal SQL query generation. While it is clearly necessary to invest in LINQ to Entities in its current state, it seems to me that it is evolving in a different direction than what LINQ to SQL was designed to fulfill. Along the way many design tradeoffs in L2E are being made, some of which are making L2E less flexible and less capable than the current version of LINQ to SQL is. For starters, I would encourage you to take a long and hard look at what is currently possible with LINQ to SQL that is not possible with LINQ to Entities. Some of this is outlined here: http://mosesofegypt.net/post/LINQ-to-Entities-what-is-not-supported.aspx (especially the current limitations on LINQ query expression evaluations and the boundaries between client-side method invocations and server-side query generation). While workarounds may be possible many of these require trade-offs that the current LINQ to SQL does not require (i.e. more client-side evaluation and less intelligent SQL generation). I would also encourage you to look at Rob Conery’s work on the MVC Storefront (http://blog.wekeroad.com/mvc-storefront) with LINQ to SQL to see how he is using it to build a data access layer, particularly this post: http://blog.wekeroad.com/mvc-storefront/asp-net-mvc-mvc-storefront-part-2 . His series of posts in particular show just how flexible LINQ to SQL can be. If L2E is to supplant L2S in the long run then it must step up to the plate and enable the same scenarios and flexibility that LINQ to SQL currently enables, otherwise we as the users of these technologies will be at a net loss in flexibility and design choice. Until L2E can take on these scenarios with the same flexibility I really don’t want to hear about LINQ to SQL being a dead-end technology. That to me sounds simply premature. David Jade
Anonymous
November 06, 2008
I left Microsoft development tools behind starting with the debut of .NET because of this attitude toward developers. Glad to see my decision being reinforced :)
Anonymous
November 06, 2008
I am disappointed with the decision to obsolete Linq to SQL. I hope you follow up on your promise to "listen to customers" and reconsider the decision to drop this lightweight-but-useful technology based on the massive amount of feedback you are getting. Microsoft has a propensity to ignore the need for lightweight tooling and technology. Compare ASP.NET WebForms to ASP.NET MVC. Microsoft actually recognized the desire for a lighter-weight framework that purposely does less for the programmer. Less framework tends to mean more flexibility -- this can be a good thing. Please do not leave developers such as me and all the people above stuck in the mud of overbearing frameworks that enforce constraints that are detrimental to certain use cases.
Anonymous
November 07, 2008
970UBo <a href="http://ngbihyiuxzyu.com/">ngbihyiuxzyu</a>, [url=http://rwfdobsnipvf.com/]rwfdobsnipvf[/url], [link=http://wnjusujqtjtw.com/]wnjusujqtjtw[/link], http://ihsiybnbewwr.com/
Anonymous
November 07, 2008
I have found LINQ to SQL to be an incredibly lightweight yet powerful tool. It is horribly mischaracterized as a RAD tool (even by the ADO team) but used appropriately can be extremely flexible and conducive to developing domain centered applications. There are people out there who understand the potential of this technology (stand up and take a bow, Ian) and MS should let people like these take the product forward, whether as an MS offering or not.
Anonymous
November 07, 2008
Is the Entity Framework out of Beta? I just Googled for it and came up with Beta 2, circa 2007. Gah.
Anonymous
November 07, 2008
All -- Please help. I keep hearing about how Linq-To-Entities is now preferred to Linq-To-Sql, such as
Anonymous
November 09, 2008
So with the recent news of LINQ to SQL going DOA a lot of those who have developed applications around
Anonymous
November 09, 2008
#.think.in infoDose #6 (3rd Nov - 8th Nov)
Anonymous
November 09, 2008
I recently wrote a article regarding ADO.NET EF v LINQ to SQL which you can find here... http://weblogs.asp.net/chadmoran/archive/2008/11/09/ado-net-v-linq-to-sql.aspx Microsoft I think this is a terrible mistake. I think what you need to do instead of having EF v L2S you should have EF -extend- L2S instead of having it replace. You're wasting everyone's time, money and hard work with your inconsistencies and constant mind-changing. Get your act together, and soon. A lot of people are now paying attention to Microsoft as a platform for development with a lot of the good things you've done lately like having MVC, MEF and ASP.NET AJAX being developed on CodePlex. Now is the last time you want to mess things up.
Anonymous
November 10, 2008
<p>Tim Mallalieu, PM of LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities, recently <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2008/10/29/update-on-linq-to-sql-and-linq-to-entities-roadmap.aspx"
Anonymous
November 10, 2008
Tim Mallalieu, PM of LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities, recently announced: “…as of .NET 4.0 the Entity...
Anonymous
November 10, 2008
I can't believe that you are going to drop L2S just like this after 1 year. It's quick, intuitive, powerful and just working. Developers invested a lot of time in learning this technology and implementing it in new projects. I'm strongly convinced that you should invest in this technology, implementing new features in L2S that developers have been asking. If you confirm that you are going to drop this technology, I suggest everyone just to move to NHibernate, that now supports even Linq To NHibernate, and at least it's open source and can be carried on by the community. I hope something you might change (again) your mind about L2S.
Anonymous
November 11, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 11, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 12, 2008
As was stated above, I believe that EF is a superior product and I am using it successfully in production applications with one exception. Linq to SQL gives me the ability (whereas Linq to EF does not) to add a table-valued function invocation to a Linq statement and join that table with other tables, etc. in my Linq statement. This allows me to do something very powerful that I utilize extensively (and that isn't available natively). I have a set of TVFs that simply convert an XML input into a table of the specified SQL type and, when joined with another data set, allows me to one-up the SQL "IN" functionality. Long story short...ax Linq to SQL, but please, please, PLEASE don't throw me in that briar patch! No seriously, please allow me to invoke table-valued functions using Linq to Entities (which I CAN'T DO TODAY!!! @$!#). M$ rocks...
Anonymous
November 18, 2008
I don't like the Entity framework at all. If I had to make a decision to choose one of the ORMs , why I do not choose Nhibernate over Entity Framework, It is stable, compatible with hibernate. LINQ to SQL is a baby , i would like to see the improvement on it, instead of a totally new framework. I hope the feature if we could just use the general collection for one-many or many-many mapping...
Anonymous
November 18, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
November 24, 2008
Microsoft favorisiert Entity Framework vor Linq2Sql
Anonymous
December 01, 2008
Following bunch of announcements about .NET 4.0, ADO.NET team makes a not so surprising announcement
Anonymous
December 02, 2008
1 problem - if i have table t1 (id int primary key) and generate it"s pk by sequence, not identity, that attribute use? StoreGeneratedPattern="Computed" not use in case primary key!!! 2 Why absent partial void Insert ...How customize insertd, update, delete?
Anonymous
December 03, 2008
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
December 04, 2008
WAR between Entity Framework Vs LINQ to SQL
Anonymous
December 04, 2008
I think the comments here will bear out that a lot of people never understood LINQ 2 SQL to be a temp solution or a partial implemenation. http://visualstudiomagazine.com/features/article.aspx?editorialsid=2583 From that post it sounds like everyone was supposed to know it was a "risky" technology and an early adopter only short term strategy. I knew that because I went to the PDC and TechED 2 years ago. But no one writing those pretty cover articles for Visual Studio Mag or MSDN ever said "don't do this if your project is going to live more than 1 year". I have been yelling for that entire two years that people needs to look at EF as their long term solution, but no one ever listened and generally gave me a ton of opinions why L2S was "superior"... I personally have no problems with EF. It works about as well as L2S, but lacks the docs or community support. Maybe that will change now that is a finally THE access method.
Anonymous
December 04, 2008
Hi! How include master table in group expression? E.g. in AdventureWorks: vaster table Person.Contact, detail table Sales.SalesOrderHeader. Group context = new EF.AdventureWorksEntities(); var query = (from p in context.SalesOrderHeaders group p by p.Contact.ContactID into g select g) and we write var result = from grp in query select new { id = grp.Key, Number = grp.Count(), FirstName= (from s in grp where s.Contact.ContactID == grp.Key select s.Contact.FirstName).First<string>()} In LINQ OK! But in EF s.Contact == NULL!!!
Anonymous
December 07, 2008
Working with Data in Silverlight 2 (Entity Framework, Ado.Net Data Services, and DataGrid)
Anonymous
December 07, 2008
What Is The Future To "LINQ To SQL"
Anonymous
December 07, 2008
How add in ConceptualModels business object (EntitySet) that no direct mapping in database? E.g. business object with grouping. Simple solution - create view in database not use! I am sorry my bad english!
Anonymous
December 13, 2008
I'm not dead or gone, just had a lot of work to do. Have started to record a lot of screen casts
Anonymous
December 15, 2008
Busyettt...............bener nih LINQ 2 SQL nggak ada kelajutan Road Mapnya.... gimana nih om MIC &
Anonymous
December 17, 2008
considerable issues moving from Linq to SQL to Entity Framework
Anonymous
December 18, 2008
Just finished up a presentation on Visual Studio 2010 for ICC's MS Dev special interest group. A good time was had by all. I used the card deck that is in the Training Kit, and added a few salient slides. We had a lot of coversation about Linq, WPF and
Anonymous
December 18, 2008
Just finished up a presentation on Visual Studio 2010 for ICC's MS Dev special interest group. A good time was had by all. I used the card deck that is in the Training Kit, and added a few salient slides. We had a lot of coversation about Linq, WPF and
Anonymous
December 24, 2008
It's plain from all the feedback here and elsewhere that many people find LINQ to SQL powerful and simple, whereas the Entity Framework is currently not a plausible alternative. With this in mind, would you please reconsider? If you obsolete such a promising technology just because it wasn't built by your team, you risk alienating many thousands of early adopters who find that it fits their needs and who were looking forward to future development.
Anonymous
January 01, 2009
Linq to Entities doesn't even support the Create Function Import of a stored procedure that returns nothing! If so, where is it? There are tutorials and videos all over the web for linq to sql but next to nothing on linq to entities. I am so frustrated with this technology. It has put me weeks behind in development. I rewrote all of my linq to sql over into linq to entities and getting past the stored procedures has been a nightmare. It is impossible! And I can't get support on it. There's not even an asp.net forum dedicated to linq to entities. Not that anyone ever answers you over there anyway. Also, try combining ado.net with linq to entities. The changes you make in running a stored procedure are not updated in the entitie model and now you're retrieving old data before the sproc was run. Also, forget updating your entity model without entirely deleting it and starting over. It simply has so many limitations that it doesn't update the model entirely and only on a few things. If you change your database, just delete the model and start over. So forget any customizations. Please put some effort into this technology and "fix" it NOW to run with stored procedures. Give us a patch. Were we told it we were just microsoft's free beta testers? Because this technology does not work and forget trying to use it in a real world application. Do I have to wait for 4.0 to actually get a technology that works? By then, I'll have moved to a working ORM solution and when that happens you won't find me coming back to it. How can you release a technology as a "working solution" when it doesn't even support something as simple as running ANY type of stored procedure?
Anonymous
January 04, 2009
原因近日不断看到有关“LINQ已死”，“LINQ玩完了吧”的言论，甚至于更有牛人说出“程序开发最终会回到本机代码上”，暂不说这些言论是否正确，且先来看看各位的惊人言论，下面仅摘录部分：言论1...
Anonymous
January 04, 2009
近日不断看到有关“LINQ已死”，“LINQ玩完了吧”的言论，甚至于更有牛人说出“程序开发最终会回到本机代码上”，于是便有了本文：
Anonymous
January 05, 2009
This is such a horrible idea and it smacks heavily of a new person coming into a position and wanting to create his own 'baby' as it were. The linq to sql was a really good idea that deserves to be improved on while the entity framework is an overly cumbersome unit of garbage that is of questionable need. Why not just improve the linq to sql and keep moving it forward instead of yet again creating something new and forcing us all to switch to it?
Anonymous
January 07, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 07, 2009
Could somebody translate this blog post into English, please?
Anonymous
January 11, 2009
Linqtosql微软不主动更新了，最近比外国的技术博客上看到的。不知道这信息是否真实。但是本人刚刚有了解了一下linqtosql，他对存储过程的支持不太好，不能返回数据集，如：我的一个通用...
Anonymous
January 14, 2009
Hibernate and EF are only good for bloated development environments who have no competative advantage in the market. Personally i think productivity in the industry has dived in the last 5-6 years . LINQ2SQL was a nice solution that fitted 90% of the apps that we need to write not the huge monsters that need massive development and support teams for little business gain except to make developers/architects good that they have made the "perfect product".
Anonymous
January 14, 2009
The lack of response from the ADO.NET team is curious at best... You guys come off as a bunch of aristocrats. If some new MS products are built on top of entity framework, why aren't the dao layer pluggable so that you could use Linq2sql or NHibernate for that sake. Seems like bad design
Anonymous
January 14, 2009
The lack of response from the ADO.NET team is curious at best... You guys come off as a bunch of aristocrats. If some new MS products are built on top of entity framework, why aren't the dao layer pluggable so that you could use Linq2sql or NHibernate for that sake. Seems like bad design
Anonymous
January 15, 2009
I’d hoped to completely avoid any discussion surrounding the future (or futures) of Entity Framework
Anonymous
January 15, 2009
Amen to mknopf. I can't believe that you're putting out any kind of "the future is Entiity Framework" message when EF in it's current incarnation is so brain dead. Am I just not supposed to develop any sort of data application until you get your sh*t together? Stored procedures for example! I can't tell my dba not to use them.
Anonymous
January 15, 2009
Is this not just a nail in the coffin of closed source software?
Anonymous
January 25, 2009
If LinqToSql was to not be supported any more, would-it be possible to have its source code on CodePlex? Or at least, to open all this "internal classes" programming model so that third-parties could integrate other vendors databases. When looking at the way LinqToSql is made, it is obvious that extensibility points are provided. Just make them public!
Anonymous
January 26, 2009
This is going to make so many people switch to NHibernate
Anonymous
January 28, 2009
ADO.NET Entity Framework OR LINQ to SQL
Anonymous
January 28, 2009
ADO.NET Entity Framework OR LINQ to SQL
Anonymous
January 28, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 30, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2009
What part of, "We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well." are we not reading, seeing, understanding? It looks to me that while they are working on "Entity Framework" they will continue to work on LINQ to SQL, though perhaps not as "important" to them as EF. -pk
Anonymous
February 04, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 06, 2009
A whole book on corporate-speak?! Read the reviews on Amazon, and you'll see that the book belongs to the category of: "Here are 3 pages that would make a pretty good magazine article; now let me pad it out to 200 pages so I can put a book on my resume." If anyone still have trouble believing that LINQ to SQL is dead, I urge you to compare the statement above to the statement that came out when Flight Simulator (Microsoft's longest-running product) was cancelled two weeks ago. It's seriously uncanny; they even use the word "fully committed." Laying off the whole team, that's a funny way of showing your commitment to the product ...
Anonymous
February 12, 2009
Just wanted to cast my vote for support of table-valued functions in EF v2. That's the only thing I used LINQ to SQL for and, even today, I would rather that functionality be in EF. If LINQ to SQL is on it's way out. I can only assume/hope that MS will move function support to EF. Thanks in advance...
Anonymous
February 17, 2009
At the very least, keep LINQ to SQL in VS2010...maintained or not. Are you saying that it will be excluded from VS2010? Or that it will not be further enhanced in VS2010? KEEP LINQ to SQL!
Anonymous
February 18, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
March 21, 2009
What ASP.NET MVC Can Learn From Ruby on Rails
Anonymous
March 24, 2009
MS needs to develop a flexible, living, cross-platform, quick-to-develop Data Access layer. L2S has it's limitations, and I never found a quick easy way to update it when the data model changed, which it does frequently in a development environment. Additionally, I find myself using MySQL more and more for web site development and L2MySql would be nice. Whatever they come up with, they had better do it quick before too many more developers get used to L2S and then feel abandoned when it goes the way of Foxpro, BOB and playsforsure.
Anonymous
March 25, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
March 31, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 10, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 10, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 10, 2009
Microsoft Kills LINQ to SQL? For the last couple of months, I've been hearing all kinds of complains
Anonymous
April 10, 2009
For the last couple of months, I've been hearing all kinds of complains, cries, nervous breakdowns
Anonymous
May 12, 2009
dont worry ... L2S was only lightweight wrapper around relational database approach, allowing only simple automatic persistence of simple inheritance trees; simply because of LINQ - as this has nothing to do particulary with databases only. And L2S has its flaws for multitier usage, and is not intended to be enhanced (as it is impossible to manage for VERY HIGHER level "REAL" ORM). So Entity Framework WILL integrate good things from L2S, reuse its querying capabilities inside (although its query language originaly was not powered by LINQ?) and as making "really good" ORM (allowing to forgot for SQL completelly) is nobel-price task IMHO, it is simply very, very, very much complex to do it well, than simple L2S wrapper - so be patient, and believe ...
Anonymous
May 15, 2009
Linq2SQL's 'big brother' - Entity Framework
Anonymous
May 15, 2009
Microsoft killing LINQ to SQL?
Anonymous
May 20, 2009
Hibernate and EF are only good for bloated development environments who have no competative advantage in the market. Personally i think productivity in the industry has dived in the last 5-6 years . LINQ2SQL was a nice solution that fitted 90% of the apps that we need to write not the huge monsters that need massive development and support teams for little business gain except to make developers/architects good that they have made the "perfect product".
Anonymous
May 21, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 22, 2009
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S?
Anonymous
May 26, 2009
I suggest implementing a Repository pattern to simplify transition between NHibernate,L2S and L2E. See http://www.codeplex.com/backgroundmotion
Anonymous
May 27, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 30, 2009
Информация полезная. Спасибо. Хотелось бы только обновлений почаще
Anonymous
June 11, 2009
У меня очень скоро в bookmarks место закончится, но я буду рад добавлять с вашего блога и далее ссылочки на интересные темы!
Anonymous
June 11, 2009
ヒマだょ…誰かかまってぉ…会って遊んだりできる人募集！とりあえずメール下さい☆　uau-love@docomo.ne.jp
Anonymous
June 12, 2009
話題の小向美奈子ストリップを隠し撮り！入念なボディチェックをすり抜けて超小型カメラで撮影した神動画がアップ中！期間限定配信の衝撃的映像を見逃すな
Anonymous
June 12, 2009
話題の小向美奈子ストリップを隠し撮り！入念なボディチェックをすり抜けて超小型カメラで撮影した神動画がアップ中！期間限定配信の衝撃的映像を見逃すな
Anonymous
June 13, 2009
カワイイ子ほど家出してみたくなるようです。家出掲示板でそのような子と出会ってみませんか？彼女たちは夕食をおごってあげるだけでお礼にHなご奉仕をしてくれちゃったりします
Anonymous
June 14, 2009
あなたは右脳派？もしくは左脳派？隠されたあなたの性格分析が3分で出来ちゃう診断サイトの決定版！合コンや話のネタにも使える右脳左脳チェッカーを試してみよう
Anonymous
June 15, 2009
My Visual Studio 2010 presentation for ICC
Anonymous
June 15, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
June 16, 2009
セレブ達は一般の人達とは接する機会もなく、その出会う唯一の場所が「逆援助倶楽部」です。男性はお金、女性はSEXを要求する場合が多いようです。これは女性に圧倒的な財力があるから成り立つことの出来る関係ではないでしょうか？
Anonymous
June 17, 2009
貴方のオ○ニーライフのお手伝い、救援部でHな見せたがり女性からエロ写メ、ムービーをゲットしよう！近所の女の子なら実際に合ってHな事ができちゃうかも！？夏に向けて開放的になっている女の子と遊んじゃおう
Anonymous
June 18, 2009
まったぁ〜りしたデートがしたいです☆結構いつでもヒマしてます♪　m-g-j@docomo.ne.jp　年齢と名前くらいは入れてくれるとメール返信しやすいかも…
Anonymous
June 21, 2009
A lot of people are confused about whether or not they should use LINQ to SQL , because the word on the
Anonymous
June 23, 2009
Можно и поспорить по этому вопросу, ведь только в споре проявляется истина. :)
Anonymous
July 01, 2009
perfect this blog, kameralı sesli sohbet chat girişi.
Anonymous
July 04, 2009
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S?
Anonymous
July 07, 2009
Any real world solutions using EF by now?
Anonymous
July 09, 2009
Любопытно! Только не могу понять как часто обновляется этот блог? :)
Anonymous
July 17, 2009
Very good, congratulations article
Anonymous
July 18, 2009
I am grateful to you for this great content.
Anonymous
July 19, 2009
I am grateful to you for this great content.
Anonymous
July 21, 2009
Very good, congratulations article ,<a href="http://w3.org">w </a>
Anonymous
July 23, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
July 23, 2009
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S?
Anonymous
August 11, 2009
I want to answer to Dimtry. Not sure if this is what you meant. But from in LINQ to SQL you can map a table from a dataontext to another database by using the SQL 3 part syntax/prefix in the table attribute of the entitity. I tried this and works well both reading and writing data. [Table(Name = "MyOtherDatabase.Schema.MyOtherTable")] public class MyOtherTable {
Anonymous
August 17, 2009
Хм... :) Вы бы знали что про Вас пишут в других блогах :)
Anonymous
September 01, 2009
Очень интересный блог получился
Anonymous
September 04, 2009
I'm not happy to see something simple abandoned for something more complex. We don't need more features and more books and more configuration files; we just need APIs that are simple and intuitive. I appreciate Microsoft chiming in on these comments, but I have little faith that you can take a product like EF v1 and make it more simple--how often does that actually happen? I advocated the use of L2S on a major, major rewrite for a leading retailer. The L2S is very isolated, so replacing it won't cause a lot of pain, but I would be sorry to see it go--it's so simple and easy to understand.
Anonymous
September 12, 2009
Learning from Down Under promotion videos
Anonymous
September 12, 2009
Are there known vulnerabilities that allow uploading of php files to a server
Anonymous
September 14, 2009
It is almost a year. Still no updates on LINQ to SQL. Not even any new articles on the blog about LINQ to SQL. It is all about EF. I guess the writing is on the wall. Even though MS is not writing it. At the same time they are not preventing the chaos around LINQ to SQL being dead. The King is dead. Long live the King.
Anonymous
September 21, 2009
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S? telefon dinleme
Anonymous
September 28, 2009
This is just sad, and a little ridiculous, quite honestly. L2S is great, and you guys (more than anyone else) should know you can't release something and then, basically, drop support. I'm seriously disappointed, and disgusted, by how you guys have handled this.
Anonymous
October 15, 2009
Just been slowly working my way through a very small project as a means to learning Linq. Then I get to needing a left join; and start looking up how to implement... Then I find these kinds of comment. Well, for me, Linq IS dead.
Anonymous
October 15, 2009
Matthijs, what’s wrong with left join in LINQ to SQL? Use combination of join and DefaultIfEmpty() for that.
Anonymous
November 01, 2009
SubSonic 3 is built with a similar ideology to LINQ-to-SQL, and with some community effort could really replace L2SQL. At the moment it's a bit rough around the edges though. Also good if you want your app to be (gasp!) portable, since it actually runs under Mono.
Anonymous
November 03, 2009
Thank you very much for everything
Anonymous
November 05, 2009
Now you guys all know how us Visual FoxPro devs felt when MS killed VFP. They will drop a technology whenever they get ready, and they DO NOT care what the impact is. They are in control of it all. What else are we going do to?
Anonymous
November 11, 2009
Give me one Microsoft ORM to learn and just one or give me a URL discussing Microsoft's competition.
Anonymous
November 23, 2009
Thanks for wasting the last year of my life learning Linq to Sql. I really liked it and recommended it to colleagues. You have lost what little trust I had in Microsoft.
Anonymous
December 01, 2009
this is very nice blog,thank you for all
Anonymous
December 01, 2009
this is very nice blog,thank you for all
Anonymous
December 07, 2009
thanks for all it is very nice blog
Anonymous
December 17, 2009
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S?
Anonymous
December 20, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
December 20, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
December 20, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
December 23, 2009
veryy good
Anonymous
January 05, 2010
L2S is a great solution for our needs. Why not evolve something that works so well and is as popular as L2S?
Anonymous
January 16, 2010
thank you everybody .This very important blog
Anonymous
January 18, 2010
Personnally, I have used Linq to Sql, found it to be a suboptimal and I still have reservations about the multi-tier strategy for EF. I'm a huge Microsoft fan and have always been, but it seems like they are trying to be too many things to too many people.
Anonymous
February 19, 2010
Thanks for wasting the last year of my life learning Linq to Sql. I really liked it and recommended it to colleagues. You have lost what little trust I had in Microsoft.
Anonymous
February 23, 2010
Thanks a lot for the wonderful information
Anonymous
March 08, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
March 10, 2010
I only learnt LINQ to SQL last month. but I still like stored procedures ;)
Anonymous
March 14, 2010
Thanks for mentioning my article. I wanted to pass along that at the beginning of the year (after rights revert from Infotoday back to me) a pdf version of the article will be available at our page dedicated to that study . We’ll be posting the final study report there shortly as well.
Anonymous
March 28, 2010
I only learnt LINQ to SQL last month. but I still like stored procedures...
Anonymous
March 29, 2010
Hello everyone. Sean Noble here - hope everyone's doing well - just wanted to make a brief comment regarding this announcement on behalf of the Foundation: Microsoft's lack of planning and thought towards how developers use platforms is indeed terrible and affects many. The decision to build EF instead of intelligently enhance LINQ to SQL was certainly wrong. The reason for the incorrect divergence is capital drive. Specifically, wanting to get LINQ out and in use, MS decided to get LINQ to SQL out quickly so that we would have something LINQ based to connect to SQL Server with. Once there were two separate projects in motion, it became exponentially difficult to integrate the two, hence the incorrect result. This is the reason for the harm inflicted on us - just so that you're aware. For those effected, it is important to always remember that we were hurt by this and to not forget that it the capital drive that was the real culprit, not any one person or even group of people. We do have a solution for this type of problem. Please take comfort in that we have several plans being executed at present. If you read this, please remember this as a good example of large-scale damage and inefficiency caused by capitalism and how much better a correct system could be. And of course, look for us in the future so that you may assist if you'd like. In the mean time, LINQ to SQL still exists and it is of no surprise that future MS tech will be based off of EF due to multiple DB support. Foundation technology, while supporting both frameworks simultaneously via abstraction will continue to favor our advanced LINQ to SQL based tech due to our clean software design (which works great with LINQ to SQL) and SQL Server only solutions - which is the correct default course of action for any new software development at present. Please remember to abstract of course (thumbs up ;)) so that you can upgrade later if needed. Thanks for your time - Have a great day Sean Noble The Future Begins

Entity Framework vs LINQ to SQL intro http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8676/entity-framework-vs-linq-to-sql

Anonymous
April 15, 2010
Thanks for wasting the last year of my life learning Linq to Sql. I really liked it and recommended it to colleagues. You have lost what little trust I had in Microsoft...
Anonymous
April 15, 2010
Thanks for sharing your feedback! If your feedback doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take a few minutes to publish - or longer if the blogger is moderating comments.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 06, 2010
Thanks for wasting the last year of my life learning Linq to Sql.
Anonymous
June 08, 2010
Thanks, it's too important.. Based on the recent announcement on the ADO.NET Team Blog : "We’re making significant investments
Anonymous
August 25, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 20, 2011
Bonie Horlama Yastığının Faydaları http://horlamayastigitr.com/
Horlamayı önlemeye,
Boyun ve sırt ağrılarına ve problemlerini önlemeye yardımcı olur.
Anonymous
November 24, 2011
The comment has been removed

Share via

Update on LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities Roadmap

Comments

Additional resources