Why Linq to Entities is more "hard" that Linq to SQL -
Why do I need to specify the relationships with the inclusion of string in units in Linq? SQL is not required from Linq.
Is this the option of a developer or range?
Another problem, SQL is more "Poko" class for Linux, Linq to Entities is also much more complicated than linux to entities (unit framework) Linq-to-SQL.
In Linq-to-SQL, you basically receive your .NET classes in the database table between 1: 1 mapping and memory. It's okay for very easy scenarios, and this is where Linq-to-SQL really shines.
But in larger, more complex enterprise scenarios, this may not be sufficient for the unit framework and thus Linq-to-Entities allows you to have a different conceptual model (your .NET objects) The structure is not bound to the 1: 1 basis (legacy, multiple tables merge into multiple objects and more of them). Although it may seem very complicated and very complex, in many advanced scenarios, it is a life saving and should be one - the facility is
so I do not think that you have Linq-to- Comparison of SQL and Linq-to-Entities (EF) - they are actually created for different, different problem places with different requirements, and in this way the various approaches / style of programming
If you need Linq-to-SQL and your Enough for journeys - great - use it by all means!
Mark
Comments
Post a Comment