Skip to main content

Using Linq and generics with a Repository

I have been creating a final year project piece for my part time study that I have called CabControl. Basically it is a piece of Taxi rank software. The design is made much easier as we only have to account for account work. I have tried to make the work I have done as close to commercially useable as possible however there are some obvious omissions and that is mainly because I have to do it in spare time in between a million other assignments and interests.

The course language is in VB.NET and the database we were advised to use was an Ms Access one. I could have done it like this and sure, it would have been easy but I really wanted to learn something out of this so I asked if I could use some more funky up to date technologies in mine and so have used C# .NET 3.5 and all that it includes.

One thing I really wanted use was the Linq to SQL classes. A lot of people have not taken to this in favour of NHibernate (including my work place) as the Linq to Sql has some questionable features and is not as scaleable. However for small projects you can get going really quickly with it.

Once you have created your tables in SQL just drag them onto the Linq to SQL class screen to create on the fly classes for your tables


Any relationships that were in your tables are kept in the classes as well. For example;

The relationship between an Account and a booking is that an Account can have 0, 1 or many bookings. This means that through the Account object that is created you can call upon these bookings and then iterate through them or alternativatley you can access the related account object through the Booking object such as:

booking.Account.Name; Check the MSDN website out for more details on setting it up, there are quite a few blogs on it, also check out Scott Gus blogs tutorials on ASP.NET MVC on http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Accessing the UI Thread with Tasks in F#

I have a Windows Forms program written in F# that can deploy a code base to n number of sites at once (you select the sites you would like to deploy to and it goes off and completes a number of tasks (backing up current sites, various unpacking and moving of files etc... ). Once you start it, it begins it's merry journey and begins to update the UI with what has happened. At the moment this method of updating the UI is not pretty because the threads I am doing the work on can't update the UI so I perform some fiendery to make that happen (don't ask). I knew there was a better way using some newer .NET features but I just hadn't got round to having a fiddle yet. I have now found that if you use the built in Task class but break your code up in a nicer way and then chain the tasks together you can then pass the correct context into the task that you want to talk to the UI. Here's a little script to give you a feel for it. You can press the "start" butt

NESTA - Next Gen.

via nesta.org.uk Following on from an article on the BBC about Raspberry Pi, this next gen report has some interesting findings. The scariest stat which I picked out from the BBC website was "out of the 28,767 teachers who were awarded Qualified Teacher Status... in 2010, only three qualified in computing or computing science as their primary qualification" Having worked as a computer science teacher for a year in a school that was a specialist in Computing I can concur that the uptake in Comp Sci was woeful. 2 Students for A2... The other teachers backgrounds in Computer Science was also fairly woeful (most knowing a bit about Office but still a paltry amount even about that). I couldn't speak for my counterpart that I was covering however. I suspect they were fairly up on things. All in all what kills me is that Computer science is not a secondary level subject. Areas are often covered, a little in IT, a little in DT subjects (if kids choose Systems and Contr