Tell me it isn't so

Dropping it would be the right thing to do. Objectspaces is not something that should be part of the framework. The reason for that is that it is completely closed: any RDBMS vendor will be pissed as hell because they can't create support for their database in Objectspaces, i.e.: illegal tactics from MS to promote SqlServer through objectspaces.Remember: it is completely impossible to write a query engine for objectspaces which supports Oracle plus it is impossible to produce a mapping schema which supports oracle, as the mapping schema can't store sequences nor can it cope with catalog less database designs.

donderdag 1 april 2004 10:16

When I think of it... it's april 1st... Still I think it would make sense. I also think that IBM and Oracle will push for a more open format.

donderdag 1 april 2004 10:18

I sincerely hope this is an April Fool's gag. Please say it is...

donderdag 1 april 2004 16:05

I heard this tip day ago - dunno if its old news or...:ObjectSpaces is not participating in Whidbey beta 1, however, it remains part of the Whidbey/Yukon wave and will be made available as a downloadable add-on pack for the .NET Framework Whidbey shortly after Whidbey ships. This additional development and stabilization period will be focused on improving the overall ObjectSpaces programming experience and providing tighter integration with WinFS, the next generation file system in Longhorn. The schedule for the ObjectSpaces mapping tool is also being adjusted accordingly.

donderdag 1 april 2004 16:43

Thanks for the additional info. My thoughts on that: well, it's rediculous! It was available as a seperate download to start with, but then was included in in both alpha's and now it's being removed from the beta and is going to be a seperate download again once Whidbey's complete. Doesn't seem like they know what they're doing with it; and it definitely doesn't seem like it's being treated as a core component...despite how it was talked up at PDC and such. This is disapointing to say the least. -Scottp.s. Frans, The first time through I let your post slide but I just saw it again and it pissed me off. You're stuff is all over the newsgroups and web trashing OS and now saying it's an illegal tactic, IT'S B.S.! If you don't anything constructive to say shut the hell up!

donderdag 1 april 2004 16:58

Scott, where am I trashing OS 'all over the place' ? I wrote 1 blog entry once about OS, oh my...I have an opinion about the closeness of objectspaces and that's my opinion. If you can't stand that opinion, that's fine, prove me wrong with arguments then. "Shut the hell up" is not an argument, btw.You might sound dissapointed, but that is not my fault.

donderdag 1 april 2004 17:19

It looks like my "lite" version of ObjectSpaces for .NET v1.1, the WilsonORMapper (see http://www.ORMapper.net), may get an extended life. :)

donderdag 1 april 2004 20:55

Well, Frans, I have to agree with Scott. Just read your own posts in the Microsoft newsgroups. You're biased, sorry to say, but you are. Your sig (in the newsgroups) isn't helping you either, since it is advertising _your_ competing product. Also, reading your blog I know you tend to be a bit quick with the "Microsoft lock-in" argument. If you read the introductory material for ObjectSpaces that is out there, never ever does it state that OS is meant to be SQL Server only, it's just like that now. OS does not have to be DB-specific. OS can be build around Oracle. Maybe this will require some work by Oracle, but hey, that would only be logical. Microsoft can offer a good solution based on Oracle's devdocs, but only Oracle can offer the best. So, stop spreading this FUD whilst advertising your own product: you are doing the exact same thing people accuse Microsoft of.

vrijdag 2 april 2004 15:25

Here, here Wolfgang.

vrijdag 2 april 2004 15:34

"Well, Frans, I have to agree with Scott. Just read your own posts in the Microsoft newsgroups. You're biased, sorry to say, but you are. Your sig (in the newsgroups) isn't helping you either, since it is advertising _your_ competing product. Also, reading your blog I know you tend to be a bit quick with the "Microsoft lock-in" argument."blablabla. Sorry, but this is simply not true. Admitted, my sig states what I sell (a lot of people's sigs do), but since when does that make me anti-OS or bashing it as Scott says I do? I haven't heard a single argument against what I said, only some nittpicking mumbling about a sig, my usenet postings (in which do not bash Objectspaces at all) and my blog (which doesn't bash objectspaces, in fact, I wrote just 1 single blog entry about it with 1 line where I said that it didn't cut it, which is my personal opinion you are free to disagree with). Since when is it impossible to have an opinion about a piece of software? If you have paid any attention to my usenet postings, and you have apparently, you have seen that I don't bash other peoples tools in newsgroups at all. I don't see how it's the opposite. The microsoft lock-in argument IS reality here, as Objectspaces can't support Oracle. Oracle can't write a query engine to support oracle either. You think they can like they have written a provider for ADO.NET? No. You want to know something about vendor lockin, Wolfgang? You know MS has a native .NET provider for DB2? It's in the host integration server 2004. Is it part of .NET? No. Why not, you might ask. Well, the answer is pretty simple (and understandable, if I might add). Am I wrong? OF COURSE! At least, it has to be, as I'm biased, and bashing it all over the place, am I not, Wolfgang? Do you even have a clue what this is all about? I have the feeling you do not: "If you read the introductory material for ObjectSpaces that is out there, never ever does it state that OS is meant to be SQL Server only, it's just like that now. OS does not have to be DB-specific. OS can be build around Oracle. Maybe this will require some work by Oracle, but hey, that would only be logical. Microsoft can offer a good solution based on Oracle's devdocs, but only Oracle can offer the best."You clearly don't understand how Oracle databases work. Where can I specify which sequence to use for PK values in a given table? How can I specify simply my schema and not a catalog? You can't! Not at the moment at least. The mapping format is not able to hold that kind of information. How can a query engine be plugged into the object spaces engine so Oracle specific SQL can be generated? I don't know about you but it's currently not possible to do that. Does MS update the framework during the year? No. When will Objectspaces support Oracle at the soonest? In the successor of .NET 2.0, OR Microsoft must update the framework during the time between versions. Not very likely. Do I understand what I'm talking about? You bet I do. Of course objectspaces can be changed internally and the mapping format can be changed so Oracle can be targeted, Firebird/interbase (which works even differently, no schemas! how to handle those?) Pervasive (no named parameters!) etc. etc. However not with the current bits. The architecture is not setup to be flexible enough so 3rd party vendors can provide a new query engine or mapping info provider so objectspaces can work with that. I have both already written for oracle and firebird. If it was all interface based, I could wrap my code in a class which implements that interface and I could use Objectspaces with my oracle dynamic query engine or mappinginfo supplier, same with firebird. It's closed now, and will not be opened up soon. >>>>>> is this bad? <<<<<<<<<No. It's not bad, IF the closed code is not part of a GENERIC framework like .NET is. If it's an add-on set of classes, for example shipped with Yukon or with the MBF, it is not part of the .NET generic framework and behaves like any 3rd party library. See the difference now? I hope so."So, stop spreading this FUD whilst advertising your own product: you are doing the exact same thing people accuse Microsoft of."Erm, where am I advertising my own product while writing anything negative about Objectspaces? I'm not. Nor am I bashing objectspaces (give me one example of a usenet posting where I do that) nor am I advertising my tool when I apparently do bash objectspaces (but again, I'm not). The only person advertising his tool is Paul Wilson in this thread. And where am I doing the exact same thing? and what exact same thing might that be? As I said to Scott: if you are dissapointed if Objectspaces is not part of .NET, it is not my fault but MS'. I don't see the problem, as it will be available, so you can use it. You can't use it NOW anyway, you CAN use some open source alternatives NOW if you want to or free tools like Paul's mapper if you want to NOW. I don't see why the flames are necessary, as it is just a debatable subject like any other subject. Apparently you hate what I have to say or what I work on apparently. That's sad, as hatred is not the way to solve problems, discussions and debates are. So again: if you have arguments against what I said, please ventilate them. But I have the feeling whatever I have to say is not wanted here. So be it.

vrijdag 2 april 2004 16:52

Here are some official words from MS:http://www.jnsk.se/weblog/posts/os.htmBest Regards,Jimmywww.jnsk.se/weblog/###

vrijdag 2 april 2004 17:32

This is also why the Microsoft Business Framework is slipping to a "service pack" post 2.0.

vrijdag 2 april 2004 19:28

Marcus: it was my understanding that the MBF was always on a separate track, (at least that's what MS developers said in the beta newsgroup for objectspaces), with a release date slightly later than whidbey.

vrijdag 2 april 2004 20:34

Guys, just rest assured that my question was not an April 1st Fools day remark. It seems amazing that it will be a separate download. Jimmy and Domagoj, where did your info come from?

zondag 4 april 2004 4:13

I received the information from the ObjectSpaces team. As I understood it, it is public information and probably to be found elsewhere by now.

zondag 4 april 2004 21:58

Frans, don't worry, I don't hate you. Hatred leads to the Dark Side :) I do, however, dislike your style. You can be very rude and this is again no exception. BTW: nowhere did I state you bash OS. All I said was that you again mentioned the "Microsoft lock-in" argument. That's Fear. People want ObjectSpaces. Oracle already has TopLink. Now I don't know how much work it would require, but in my optimism I assume it will be possible to port TopLink to .Net and make it API-compatible with OS (at least from the mapping/OO-side. The RSD will probably have to change, but that's DB-specific anyway). I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that. I have read you say many times that Oracle has some specific characteristics that will make this impossible in your view. That's Uncertainty. You mention your own competing product, that allegedly does support multiple databases. It's in your sig and this may be trivial behavior by people having O/R M tools, but it still leads to people thinking "hey, this guy has been there, he knows his stuff, maybe it really is not possible". And there we have Doubt. Now what to do? Hmm, Frans offers LLBLGen Pro and he claims it supports everything we'd hope for and then some! And thus you have become like Microsoft (as its marketing techniques are viewed by many people): spreading FUD about the competition, driving the customers to your own solution. Meanwhile, I think your lock-in argument is crap (remember, I'm venting my opinion here :) ). Why? Because I don't see people running to Microsoft SQL Server just because there's ObjectSpaces on the horizon. OODB's are becoming more popular. There already are many O/R M tools out there. Not many shops write real OO code. Many shops still have their Business Objects tied to the DB. This will not change soon. Will Microsoft land new orders for SQL Server because of ObjectSpaces? Who knows, but I doubt it will make SQL Server any more popular then it already is. What I really like to see though is the work of the teams behind Mono and Portable.NET, because those guys and girls will probably write their own ObjectSpaces as well.

maandag 5 april 2004 15:07

The lockin IS real. I've written a blog about it: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2004/04/02/106474.aspxIf you think I'm debating this because I want to sell more licenses you are wrong. I feel personally insulted by your claim I spread FUD. For your information: we had (and still have) plans to fully support the objectspaces API with our tool. FUD? No, not at all, Wolfgang.The things I said about oracle support and objectspaces isn't bull, it's real. Proof me wrong, but you can't. That's not to nag, just to make something clear about what's reality and what some people think is reality: objectspaces can't support oracle in its current form. It definitely can't support firebird in its current form. It also can't support Pervasive in its current form. That's reality. Just numbers. I'm not giving them any value, just state what's real. You might think differently, that's fine by me. "What I really like to see though is the work of the teams behind Mono and Portable.NET, because those guys and girls will probably write their own ObjectSpaces as well."You think so? Ever used the SqlClient in mono? If you have, in full, you will know that a 100% usable SqlClient is far off, left alone an O/R mapper like objectspaces. (however some mappers can be used with mono more or less, if you avoid the bugs in SqlClient)"And thus you have become like Microsoft (as its marketing techniques are viewed by many people): spreading FUD about the competition, driving the customers to your own solution."Dear wolfgang, if you really believe this, you have very little knowledge about how I look at the world. You want to know why I debate in Objectspaces threads? Because I want MS to release a generic layer which can be used by ALL O/R mappers to build O/R mapper tools on top of. A generic framework which allows you to plug in your O/R mapper technology, something like Java has for years. It's sad to see a good idea being crippled for marketing reasons. Oh, btw, if you think Objectspaces isn't crippled in its design as it is now, please explain WHY oh WHY it is designed like it is now, and not more generic with a few interfaces and the same similar modular architecture we see in a lot of ADO.NET classes. But you are free to not believe me and keep on saying I spread FUD for getting more sales. I know I don't do that (and will never do that either).

maandag 5 april 2004 16:42

This is getting tiresome, and Alex' blog is hardly the place to continue this discussion. So Alex, I'm sorry. If I had my own blog, I would take it there. Since we're not quite in the mud-slinging phase, I think this discussion still deserves public attention.Now to you, Frans, it is obvious we aren't communicating on the same level. I don't want to insult you when I say you are spreading FUD. I am just telling you how I perceive your writings. Even if my perception is off, it's still my perception, and not easy to change. If I were into such things, we would go for a beer and all would be well after getting drunk...You ask why ObjectSpaces is designed the way it is. Have you looked at the changes between the PDC bits and the CTP bits? Alex will confirm that they are massive. And not just because some methods that should've been generic in the first place are now finally generic. ObjectSpaces is still at least a year away from completion and from your own experience you have to admit that creating an O/RM layer is not something to be perceived lightly (like the dOOdads people seem to do): it has to be carefully crafted, precisely because of all the tiny, but fundamental differences between databases. You and I both don't know where Microsoft is going with this. You assume it will be part of Microsofts monopolistic marketing techniques. I don't see that. I truly believe Microsofts intentions to rid herself from "the old ways". I think ObjectSpaces is still a long way off from being stable enough to get some public interfaces out. I don't see that happen before Q1 2005. But I strongly believe that eventually, they will. Why? Precisely because many people like you will see ObjectSpaces as monopolistic lock-in technology. And for that, there's too much competition around. You yourself have an O/RM layer. I like to know, do you offer integration with VS? If not, would this be really that hard to do? Because that would probably be ObjectSpaces biggest advantage when you take the hyping away. I assume your API documentation is rock-solid and therefore no reason to stay away from LLBLGen (btw: I'd really come up with a better name (LLCoolGen seems nice :) )... How is it pronounced? Please tell me it's not "Ellebelgen" (in Dutch) :))

dinsdag 6 april 2004 14:50

"If I were into such things, we would go for a beer and all would be well after getting drunk... "Ok :)"You ask why ObjectSpaces is designed the way it is. Have you looked at the changes between the PDC bits and the CTP bits?"No I haven't had a chance to do so. (Received my CTP yesterday). I hope that they've changed enough so extensibility is embedded in the design. That's enough. MS doesn't have to provide an Oracle engine for example. "ObjectSpaces is still at least a year away from completion and from your own experience you have to admit that creating an O/RM layer is not something to be perceived lightly (like the dOOdads people seem to do)"The MyGeneration guy has a nice idea, don't underestimate the power of that tool. (it's not new though). An O/R mapper layer is not something you code on a rainy sunday, it took me more than a year full time development (of loong days and weeks). However, what I find interesting is that the state of Objectspaces is not finished, even after a year with more than 1 person developing it. It's odd that the Objectspaces team isn't done already. (just curious)."You assume it will be part of Microsofts monopolistic marketing techniques. I don't see that. I truly believe Microsofts intentions to rid herself from "the old ways". "Well, it will not be a surprise that Objectspaces' inclusion in the framework is a point of discussion among O/R mapper vendors for some time now. Everyone came to the same conclusion: why isn't it a separate download, as no other element in the framework relies on it. True, my assumptions are as good as yours, and I think the 'rumour' (which seems to be true) about the removal of Objectspaces from the framework is a good sign that your assumtion of getting rid of the reputation of the old days is perhaps true. "You yourself have an O/RM layer. I like to know, do you offer integration with VS? If not, would this be really that hard to do? Because that would probably be ObjectSpaces biggest advantage when you take the hyping away."No, it has its own gui. The reason for that is that integration in VS.NET locks you into VS.NET, and there is a large group (not a majority, but still) of developers who use other tools, f.e. Borland C# builder or SharpDevelop. Also the integration with VS.NET makes your gui a subpart of VS.NET, which is not always what you want. F.e. detailed info about an element is scattered around the IDE, properties are edited in 2 windows (f.e. project properties), which can be confusing, IMHO. My Gui idea's were not that matchable with VS.NET. What's also a reason is that when I started, the vs integration kit was not free, you had to pay 10,000$. "btw: I'd really come up with a better name (LLCoolGen seems nice :) )... How is it pronounced? Please tell me it's not "Ellebelgen" (in Dutch) :))"Yeah, I know :) I wrote the free dal generator LLBLGen in 2002 as a project to get started with ado.net and C#. I didn't expect it to get that widely used. I have to admit, that for marketing reasons I kept the name. It has one advantage, IF people search for it on google, they'll absolutely find our site :)I'm glad the skies have cleared up some, Wolfgang. I'm sorry about the miscommunication. I think for people who want to use Objectspaces, whatever happens, they will be able to use it. Personally I find objectspaces not that important, from a geek's perspective. MBF is way more important, and what I've seen of it, it is really great.

dinsdag 6 april 2004 22:39

I've been authoring o/r mappers for years, and somehow I still keep making the same mistakes :(They do take a long time to get right. And until you support the critical pet features in each db (like identity in mssql/db2 or sequence in oracle) you really don't know if you got it right.So i'm dumping my c# o/r mapper built using attributes... handling relationships properly is just too painful (not to mention the wierd and undocumented static initialization rules)......but if anybody is in the market for a dynamic code generation engine to produce keys objects (good for producing free implementations of hashcode equals, tostring for any object) I use them for registering loaded objects in a hash table during a transaction to maintain identity, etc.then let me know!cheers!-d

vrijdag 7 mei 2004 4:25

MyGeneration is working on EntitySpaces, an revolutionary improvement on our dOOdads architecture, give us a look http://www.mygenerationsoftware.com

donderdag 14 oktober 2004 21:32

Comments

Alex Thissen Weblog Build 1.15.10.1971

Recent Posts

Tags

Archives

Search

Community

Email Notifications

Events