6,342 reputation
42445
bio website rationalgeek.com
location Connecticut
age
visits member for 4 years, 3 months
seen Nov 17 at 20:01

Mar
17
comment What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?
@Matt I completely agree, POCOs are the way to go with EF, and any other ORM / persistence framework IMO.
Mar
16
comment What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?
Okay I get what you mean now. I just wanted to make sure people didn't take that to mean that there was always a connection to the database. You do have to have an object context that maintains the state of "attached" entities.
Mar
16
comment What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?
Bear in mind that this was posted when EF 1 was still newly released (or possibly still in beta). The situation is far better today with EF 4, and many of the issues raised in that vote of no confidence have been resolved.
Mar
16
comment What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?
@Berin, I want to clarify what you mean by "attached mode". I don't think that Entity Framework has a connection to the database open at all times. I believe EF works similar to NHibernate in this regard. Is this what you mean or do you mean something else? Do you have a link to documentation that explains this attached issue further?
Mar
2
comment Entity Framework limitation
1) Every feature requires testing and years of ongoing support. 2) Just because you can add it doesn't mean you should. If the recommended approach is to not do it this way, then not supporting it is probably for the best.
Feb
23
comment Best practices for connecting from ASP.NET to SQL Server?
I agree. This is the option I'm leaning toward. I just wanted to understand all the options before I pursued one over the others.
Feb
23
comment Best practices for connecting from ASP.NET to SQL Server?
By running ASP.NET as testuser. So in IIS under the app pool, you can configure the app pool to run as Network Service (the default), or a particular NT ID.
Feb
23
comment Best practices for connecting from ASP.NET to SQL Server?
Can you expand on this Wyatt? Because I can't seem to get this working. Let's say you want users to authenticate against IIS with Windows Auth, and you want ASP.NET / IIS to talk to SQL Server with a particular NT ID - call it testuser. Then you have to run ASP.NET as testuser, right? And then in order to get Kerberos working you have to set up an SPN for testuser against that server. This is what I've found to be the case. What am I doing wrong? You can look at my serverfault post that I linked to for more details.
Feb
23
comment Best practices for connecting from ASP.NET to SQL Server?
Yes I should've included the encryption in my writeup. Almost certainly if you are going with the first option you would want to encrypt the connectionstrings section of the web.config. But this is still a con, as encryption adds complexity, and you have to maintain the password, change it between QA & Prod, etc.
Feb
16
comment What can programmers learn from the construction industry?
+1 Wow this is a great analogy. I plan on shamelessly stealing it. :-)
Feb
15
comment Advantages of object-oriented programming
Downvoter care to give a reason?
Feb
4
comment Should you sacrifice code readability with how efficient code is?
+1 I was scrolling down quickly to make sure this quote was included. Now I don't have to put in an answer. :-)
Feb
3
comment What should you test with unit tests?
+1 Good explanation of Red,Green,Refactor,Repeat
Feb
3
comment Why isn't software as reliable as a car?
+1 Building a car is not the equivalent of building a software program. Building a car is more equivalent to running a software program. Designing and speccing a car is more equivalent to building a software program. And there are tons of problems during car design that get ironed out along the way, just as with software.
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
That is interesting Martin. Is there any reference page for this binary channel conversion?
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
That is a good idea. I am planning on doing that. The point of this question was to make sure I wasn't crazy before I did so. :-)
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
That is what the vendor was claiming, yes. Performance of 32,32 or 64,64 is higher than 32,64 or 64,32.
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
TCP has flow control... Maybe we aren't talking about the same layer or something? In general, "normal" network traffic does have flow control. But this is immaterial to this question I think. Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
That would be possibly only if they were using low-level network protocols that allowed for that kind of thing. Using "normal" TCP/IP or whatever prevents those types of issues. And speed of sending vs. speed of receiving has nothing to do with server "bit-ness".
Jan
26
comment Can lack of “bit parity” between web server and DB server impact performance?
I agree 64 bit is the future. But that wasn't the point of my question. I'm questioning the vendors supposition that bit parity is a valid requirement they are putting on us. We have existing server farms that we want to use that aren't in parity.