Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Thanks for all the comments so far. To clarify a bit more, in classic ASP we were using VB components, which naturally limited our ability to overcomplicate them, which was good in the sense that it kept it simpler.</p> <p>I liked Rex's reply "Ultimately, the "best practice" of best practices is to code as simply as possible UNTIL you run into a real problem that is preventing you from moving forward."</p> <p>This sounds similar to another I heard which was “Premature optimization is the root of all evil.”</p> <p>Following this, what if we just put all the bus logic in the code-behind and then moved it into shared libraries as we discovered which code would really be used by multiple pages? For example, if it's one page, you could have everything in the code-behind. If there are two pages that share one piece of logic, make a component. If two components use SQL Server, create one new component to streamline the SQL queries, etc.</p> <p>I also liked Dana's distinction about building custom applications vs a single application. It's one thing to have a full-fledged API if 1000 others will use it. It could be a waste of time to put the same energy into a one off application.</p> <p>"Architecture astronauts" is a great term for the over-engineering tendency!</p> <p>Many people express there is a middle-ground, and I think (hope) that's what we're all looking for! That is, C# gives us the ability to do <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rocket_science" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rocket science</a>, however maybe that level is only needed 5% of the time. I think exacerbating the problem is the fact that most interviewers these days like you to be very conversant in all the rocket science...</p> <p>One other related question I'd like to bring up is: How about just using POCO (.NET provided) objects to store data in the ASP.NET architecture. I've seen some architectures create a new object for every single type of data interexchange. Wouldn't it be simpler to just create a collection object (say list) and call it "this data", "thatdata", etc.?</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POASP.NET -- How to effectively use design patterns without over-engineering!
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USPeter Mortensen
    1. USalchemical
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload