Skip to main content

Dealing with DataTables

The nice thing about having someone join in a junior position at work is that it gives you a lot to blog (or repeat yourself) about. We've discussed a lot of subjects this week. One; was them being burned by some terrible old code that involved DataTables. There were a series of enormous (and broken) methods that accessed DataRows directly using the integer column index. There was a large amount of calculations directly on these items but the reason behind any of it was meaningless. The underlying Stored Procedure had changed causing an invalid cast exception.

In light of this, I thought it might be nice to go through a bit of a process of some different options of still using ado.net and why you might choose the options what the pitfalls were. Staying on topic, we didn't opt to use an SqlDataReader which would probably be the next option to go for considering how much faster that it. We talked about speed over maintainability, but I think even when we were programming on the compact framework on some fairly basic devices we still used string column references just for sanity. Some people use Enums to access the columns so that you can still stick with the ints but it maintains some meaning, my answer to that though is bog off. It still causes problems if someone changes the bloody schema underneath and if you need to squeeze the performance there, you have bigger problems.

Anyway! These is the code we discussed. In VB.NET mainly because, er why not. The original discussion was in C# but I just fancied doing it in VB.NET too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second