BT

Should LINQ to SQL Go Open Source

by Jonathan Allen on Jul 24, 2008 |

More and more, LINQ to SQL is being seen as a temporary solution. With the impending release of ADO.NET Entity Framework, a lot of people are worried that development on LINQ to SQL will fall by the wayside. With Microsoft's long history of developing and discarding database access technologies, these concerns are not without merit.

Further compounding the issue is that LINQ to SQL has been transferred to the SQL Data Programmability team, the very same group working on ADO.NET Entity Framework. With their own project filling a similar role, it is hard to see them wanting to devote a lot of time to the adopted project.

So this raises the question, "Should LINQ to SQL Go Open Source?" Leon Bambrick asks that question and provides some analysis. One of the biggest concerns he raises is the liability issue, wherein Microsoft may be reluctant to ship something with the framework that has had external contributions. On the other hand, it might be what's needed to push through community-driven features such as mockability and multiple providers.

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Not completly temporary by Francois Ward

LINQ to SQL is for small to "less small" (not quite medium =P) solutions... half a notch up from Typed Datasets. LINQ to Entity doesn't replace that, and its with that mindset that LINQ to SQL was developed (also as an introduction to other ORMs, to put the idea on the map).

LINQ to SQL serves its purpose pretty well seen from that angle, so its probably fine.

LINQ to SQL was never even supposed to exist by Danijel Arsenovski

It would be a shame if LINQ to SQL proves to be only a temporary solution; now that it has been officially released I think Microsoft has a duty to provide a decent lifecycle for this product.
My biggest objections to LINQ to SQL are following:

1. LINQ to SQL works only with Microsoft SQL Server

2. LINQ to SQL is that it is no 100% POCO. Framework forces you to use System.Data.Linq.EntitySet type on "many" side of one-to-many relationship and EntityRef on the "one" side of one-to-many relationship.

3. Single table inheritance

These are not the only ones, but you have to give them some slack since this is the first version of the product.

Some interesting background on LINQ to SQL origins:
The LINQ to SQL was never even supposed to exist

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

2 Discuss

Educational Content

General Feedback
Bugs
Advertising
Editorial
InfoQ.com and all content copyright © 2006-2013 C4Media Inc. InfoQ.com hosted at Contegix, the best ISP we've ever worked with.
Privacy policy
BT