Disadvantages of linq2sql
I have heard a lot of rumors that Linq2Sql will no longer be supported in the next .net version. I really like Linq2Sql and it is very easy for me to work with. I can understand some of the problems people are having (ppl used for nhibernate ...) but used correctly. I think most problems can be solved. I am currently using it in all of my projects and I would not be interested in seeing it no longer supported.
So list the disadvantages you see with Linq2Sql
source to share
If there was another version of Linq to SQL, here is my wishlist:
Things I really wanted by creating the latest Linq-to-SQL project (and had to do it by hand in most cases)
- Many, many associations
- Improved visual designer (including "Refresh Table" feature)
- Cascading delete / update / SET NULL control unrelated to XML cracking
- Specific collations for culture / string collation in SQL COLLATE statements (for example, specifying whether passwords should be case sensitive or not, rather than relying on the default collation of the underlying database.)
Things I might want but really don't need yet:
- Ordered collection support (saving lists to the DB so they are automatically retrieved in the same order they were saved in)
source to share
First of all, people lose interest in it as it won't evolve further and Entity Framework will go further.
LinqToSQl works and is pleasant to use, but EF will catch up sooner or later.
ORM purists would prefer it to be easier to configure LINQ to Sql to use an object model that is external to the LINQ to SQL data layer. This can be done in Linq to SQl, but it is a manual process, far from the default configuration.
source to share
One of the biggest drawbacks I see with L2S is that it is really a hassle to use it in disabled scenarios; send the serialized version of the object to another and try to "concatenate" / update it when you get it back and see its flaws. If .attach () function worked for such scenarios, L2S would be nice.
- larsw
source to share