Querying a DataSet/DataTable in .NET

[Ty Salistean]

I think it would be nice if we could have a SQL engine available on the
client side. I primarily do Windows Forms programming and it seems that I
have to make alot of calls accross the wire to manipulate data for display
purposes.

I am a FoxPro guy but I have been in .NET for 1 year now. We have an
application in FoxPro hitting SQL Server and I think that system is
architected well. If I have a screen that requires the data to be displayed
in a certain way that is completly different than how the data is stored, I
think that information should be generated client side - since it is a for
display only (I could put it in business objects so I can reuse the same
display in a different client). Either way - it is a display item.

I need to do this in a SQL SP for .NET. I feel by placing this logic in a
SQL SP, I am moving that logic to a 'procedural' based smart database. I
have a problem with that. This just does not seem productive to me. If I
switch my database, alot of my business logic will need to be rewritten...

How do we get M$ ear to ask for this? I think FoxPro got it right on this
topic...hopeful ly .NET will follow.

[John A. Bailo]

Marina wrote:

.NET can be used to program anything - video games, database access
programs, etc. So it really becomes harder to provide features to accomodate
everyone who may be writing anything. You may need this feature, someone
else may really need something else, etc.

Well that's why it's architected around assemblies -- you can add you're
own libraries for vertical specific applications.

[John A. Bailo]

Ty Salistean wrote:

I think it would be nice if we could have a SQL engine available on the
client side.

Well, there are many options already available:

1) MSDE (sql desktop edition).

2) XML/Serialized Objects -- if you only need access to subsets of data,
you can use XML or objects serialized as XML -- I just completed a smart
client c# app that does just that.

3) mySQL 5.0 -- mySQL keeps getting better and better! I just
downloaded and installed the GUI client tools -- they have the
equivalent of Query Analyser and Enterprise Manager...and it's
completely free, and you there is an embeddable version. Plus, they
have the complete .NET connector available as well.

[Marina]

You had some complaints about it being illogical to have to put your logic
into SP's, how that is not productive, etc. That is where the rant came
from.

You didn't just say 'where can I make suggestions to microsoft for future
features'. This is why it read as more of a complaint.

"Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in message
news:AD******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

It is not a rant and I am not sure where you got that from. I think maybe
you need to re-read the posts and let me know where you think it went
wrong.

I merely stated this was a suggestion for a feature. I said that in about
all of my posts. I placed this in the dotnet.general newsgroup and
labeled
it as a General Comment (not a question).

Did we go wrong at the mention of "FoxPro"? I was explaining why I was
asking for the feature. I actually like .NET for some tasks but not all.
You are correct - this would eliminate one of my problems with .NET. Am I
"ranting" - I do not think so.

It only took 8 posts (minus my one clarification) to find out where to ask
for a feature. Thanks for that.

"Marina" wrote:

Yes, I think it is the wrong place. These newsgroups are for people who
have
questions regarding how to write some code, or are having a problem
troubleshooting a problem. It's a place to ask help from the community.

You posting this here made it seem more of a rant of why isn't it here
already, and that it really ought to be. At least to me.

You can make suggestions to microsoft here:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produc...k/default.aspx

"Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in message
news:32******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

>I do not disagree. I am not sure where I said my suggestion was the
>first
> priority and above ALL other priorities.
>
> So is this the wrong place for my suggestion?
>
> "Marina" wrote:
>
>> I am just saying, that I am sure there are plenty of other things out
>> there
>> that other people want. And all of them would be useful to someone -
>> or
>> to
>> many people. Microsoft is just prioritizing based on what they see as
>> being
>> the most feasible and the most useful to the most people. Of course
>> to
>> you,
>> your request is the most useful, but that is just you. And eventually
>> they
>> may get to it, who knows.
>>
>> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:CE******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> > One last thing - I can think of serveral tools that M$ has given us
>> > (advanced
>> > and not advanced). So I am still not sure where you are coming
>> > from.
>> >
>> > Maybe you are happy with the toolset they provide, this is just a
>> > suggestion
>> > that would help me and I am sure would help others (not everyone).
>> >
>> > "Marina" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think it's the same thing.
>> >>
>> >> The goal of .NET is to provide tools so that you could write the
>> >> program
>> >> you
>> >> really need to, even if it means more work. So you have basic tools
>> >> that
>> >> you
>> >> can use and put together for more advanced tasks. There are a lot
>> >> of
>> >> basic
>> >> tools, and most of us only use a small subset of them.
>> >>
>> >> But that means there are not too many more advanced tools, which is
>> >> what
>> >> you
>> >> are looking for.
>> >>
>> >> I just don't think you can compare a data-adapter, which is a
>> >> pretty
>> >> basic
>> >> data manipulation mechanism, to writing an in-memory database
>> >> engine.
>> >>
>> >> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:30******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> >> >I understand your point.
>> >> >
>> >> > But every .NET developer has access to a DataAdapter but may
>> >> > never
>> >> > use
>> >> > it.
>> >> > This can be the same type of thing - it is available if you need
>> >> > it.
>> >> > This
>> >> > is
>> >> > just a suggestion as to how M$ can make their data handling
>> >> > better
>> >> > for
>> >> > people
>> >> > that handle these types of apps.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for the post...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Marina" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> When a technology is developed for writing very specific types
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> applications, then this can be done.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ..NET can be used to program anything - video games, database
>> >> >> access
>> >> >> programs, etc. So it really becomes harder to provide features
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> accomodate
>> >> >> everyone who may be writing anything. You may need this feature,
>> >> >> someone
>> >> >> else may really need something else, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> news:57******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> >> >> >I think it would be nice if we could have a SQL engine
>> >> >> >available
>> >> >> >on
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> > client side. I primarily do Windows Forms programming and it
>> >> >> > seems
>> >> >> > that I
>> >> >> > have to make alot of calls accross the wire to manipulate data
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > display
>> >> >> > purposes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am a FoxPro guy but I have been in .NET for 1 year now. We
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > application in FoxPro hitting SQL Server and I think that
>> >> >> > system
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > architected well. If I have a screen that requires the data
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > displayed
>> >> >> > in a certain way that is completly different than how the data
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > stored,
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > think that information should be generated client side - since
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > display only (I could put it in business objects so I can
>> >> >> > reuse
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > display in a different client). Either way - it is a display
>> >> >> > item.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I need to do this in a SQL SP for .NET. I feel by placing
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > logic
>> >> >> > in a
>> >> >> > SQL SP, I am moving that logic to a 'procedural' based smart
>> >> >> > database.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > have a problem with that. This just does not seem productive
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> > If I
>> >> >> > switch my database, alot of my business logic will need to be
>> >> >> > rewritten...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How do we get M$ ear to ask for this? I think FoxPro got it
>> >> >> > right
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > topic...hopeful ly .NET will follow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

[Ty Salistean]

We have actually used MSDE for that specifically and our use of XML is quite
extensive to decrease the amount of data calls.

From what I understand, alot of companies use SQLite
(http://www.sqlite.org/) and here is an innovative person
(http://www.queryadataset.com/). I am quoted on the site but I have NO input
on that product. I used it when it was Beta - but I have not used it since.

It just seems nicer to have something built into your product that is
packaged nicely. MSDE (SQL Express) installation can be troublesome at
times...

Thanks for the info...

"John A. Bailo" wrote:

Ty Salistean wrote:

I think it would be nice if we could have a SQL engine available on the
client side.

Well, there are many options already available:

1) MSDE (sql desktop edition).

2) XML/Serialized Objects -- if you only need access to subsets of data,
you can use XML or objects serialized as XML -- I just completed a smart
client c# app that does just that.

3) mySQL 5.0 -- mySQL keeps getting better and better! I just
downloaded and installed the GUI client tools -- they have the
equivalent of Query Analyser and Enterprise Manager...and it's
completely free, and you there is an embeddable version. Plus, they
have the complete .NET connector available as well.

[Ty Salistean]

That was intended to be supporting information for my request. Not sure how
that was a rant.

Thanks for the information though. I went to the address you supplied and
sent that to M$ as a suggestion with my supporting information. Hopefully
they will see it as such...

"Marina" wrote:

You had some complaints about it being illogical to have to put your logic
into SP's, how that is not productive, etc. That is where the rant came
from.

You didn't just say 'where can I make suggestions to microsoft for future
features'. This is why it read as more of a complaint.

"Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in message
news:AD******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

It is not a rant and I am not sure where you got that from. I think maybe
you need to re-read the posts and let me know where you think it went
wrong.

I merely stated this was a suggestion for a feature. I said that in about
all of my posts. I placed this in the dotnet.general newsgroup and
labeled
it as a General Comment (not a question).

Did we go wrong at the mention of "FoxPro"? I was explaining why I was
asking for the feature. I actually like .NET for some tasks but not all.
You are correct - this would eliminate one of my problems with .NET. Am I
"ranting" - I do not think so.

It only took 8 posts (minus my one clarification) to find out where to ask
for a feature. Thanks for that.

"Marina" wrote:

Yes, I think it is the wrong place. These newsgroups are for people who
have
questions regarding how to write some code, or are having a problem
troubleshooting a problem. It's a place to ask help from the community.

You posting this here made it seem more of a rant of why isn't it here
already, and that it really ought to be. At least to me.

You can make suggestions to microsoft here:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produc...k/default.aspx

"Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in message
news:32******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>I do not disagree. I am not sure where I said my suggestion was the
>first
> priority and above ALL other priorities.
>
> So is this the wrong place for my suggestion?
>
> "Marina" wrote:
>
>> I am just saying, that I am sure there are plenty of other things out
>> there
>> that other people want. And all of them would be useful to someone -
>> or
>> to
>> many people. Microsoft is just prioritizing based on what they see as
>> being
>> the most feasible and the most useful to the most people. Of course
>> to
>> you,
>> your request is the most useful, but that is just you. And eventually
>> they
>> may get to it, who knows.
>>
>> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:CE******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> > One last thing - I can think of serveral tools that M$ has given us
>> > (advanced
>> > and not advanced). So I am still not sure where you are coming
>> > from.
>> >
>> > Maybe you are happy with the toolset they provide, this is just a
>> > suggestion
>> > that would help me and I am sure would help others (not everyone).
>> >
>> > "Marina" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think it's the same thing.
>> >>
>> >> The goal of .NET is to provide tools so that you could write the
>> >> program
>> >> you
>> >> really need to, even if it means more work. So you have basic tools
>> >> that
>> >> you
>> >> can use and put together for more advanced tasks. There are a lot
>> >> of
>> >> basic
>> >> tools, and most of us only use a small subset of them.
>> >>
>> >> But that means there are not too many more advanced tools, which is
>> >> what
>> >> you
>> >> are looking for.
>> >>
>> >> I just don't think you can compare a data-adapter, which is a
>> >> pretty
>> >> basic
>> >> data manipulation mechanism, to writing an in-memory database
>> >> engine.
>> >>
>> >> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:30******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> >> >I understand your point.
>> >> >
>> >> > But every .NET developer has access to a DataAdapter but may
>> >> > never
>> >> > use
>> >> > it.
>> >> > This can be the same type of thing - it is available if you need
>> >> > it.
>> >> > This
>> >> > is
>> >> > just a suggestion as to how M$ can make their data handling
>> >> > better
>> >> > for
>> >> > people
>> >> > that handle these types of apps.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for the post...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Marina" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> When a technology is developed for writing very specific types
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> applications, then this can be done.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ..NET can be used to program anything - video games, database
>> >> >> access
>> >> >> programs, etc. So it really becomes harder to provide features
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> accomodate
>> >> >> everyone who may be writing anything. You may need this feature,
>> >> >> someone
>> >> >> else may really need something else, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Ty Salistean" <Ty*********@di scussions.micro soft.com> wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> news:57******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
>> >> >> >I think it would be nice if we could have a SQL engine
>> >> >> >available
>> >> >> >on
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> > client side. I primarily do Windows Forms programming and it
>> >> >> > seems
>> >> >> > that I
>> >> >> > have to make alot of calls accross the wire to manipulate data
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > display
>> >> >> > purposes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am a FoxPro guy but I have been in .NET for 1 year now. We
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > application in FoxPro hitting SQL Server and I think that
>> >> >> > system
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > architected well. If I have a screen that requires the data
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > displayed
>> >> >> > in a certain way that is completly different than how the data
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > stored,
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > think that information should be generated client side - since
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > display only (I could put it in business objects so I can
>> >> >> > reuse
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > display in a different client). Either way - it is a display
>> >> >> > item.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I need to do this in a SQL SP for .NET. I feel by placing
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > logic
>> >> >> > in a
>> >> >> > SQL SP, I am moving that logic to a 'procedural' based smart
>> >> >> > database.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > have a problem with that. This just does not seem productive
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> > If I
>> >> >> > switch my database, alot of my business logic will need to be
>> >> >> > rewritten...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How do we get M$ ear to ask for this? I think FoxPro got it
>> >> >> > right
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > topic...hopeful ly .NET will follow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

[John A. Bailo]

Ty Salistean wrote:

It just seems nicer to have something built into your product that is
packaged nicely. MSDE (SQL Express) installation can be troublesome at
times...

Agreed -- I wouldn't want to force a commercial user to have to install
MSDE.

I would, however, look into mySQL embedded version for Windows.

http://www.mysql.com

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Try,

In the IDE from 2005.
Click on the mainmenu Data button
Click on add new database
Do everything the wizard ask
Drag a datagridview on your form
Edit in that in its properties the DataSource to the DataSource that you
have just created.
Run

Not that hard to do in my opinion.

Cor

[Ty Salistean]

How do you handle INNER JOINS (LEFT OUTER's etc...) client side?

Hard to do in my opinion...I want to do this without a call to the SQL Server.

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" wrote:

Try,

In the IDE from 2005.
Click on the mainmenu Data button
Click on add new database
Do everything the wizard ask
Drag a datagridview on your form
Edit in that in its properties the DataSource to the DataSource that you
have just created.
Run

Not that hard to do in my opinion.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Ty,

How do you handle INNER JOINS (LEFT OUTER's etc...) client side?

Hard to do in my opinion...I want to do this without a call to the SQL
Server.

Can you explain this a little bit more?

Cor