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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Marina]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Ty Salistean]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Marina]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Ty Salistean]

Ok.

So I get all the basic tools to do remoting (protocols, etc..), but M$ built
that for me. I have all the tools to build a really cool DataGrid, but M$
gave me that too - and they keep trying to make it better.

So, I could write a SQL engine or....Maybe I dont get it. Thanks for the
post.

Anyone else with any thoughts?

"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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Ty Salistean]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.

[Marina]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.
>>
>>
>>

[Ty Salistean]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.
>>
>>
>>

[Marina]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .NET will follow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

[Ty Salistean]

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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AD**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AD**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:CE**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:30**********************************@microsof t.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*********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> news:57**********************************@microsof t.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...hopefully .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