On May 4, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > Hi Jon, just a question: does this mean that the mono linq provider is > waiting for a deep refactoring?
It means that I have lofty plans that may never see the light of day. :-) DbLinq could use a major refactoring (see also all the type check code riddled ~everywhere instead of using proper OO abstractions). It could use lots of help in general, frankly (see also the unit tests taking ~10 minutes to execute, _just_ for SQL Server & SQLite). I see re-motion/re-linq as a possible solution to some of this, as they have an existing LINQ abstraction to simplify the writing of IQueryable providers (which can also be used to simplify unit tests -- yay!). What's lacking is a "proper" cross-DB abstraction layer, which is where DbLinq could come in (as DbLinq already supports multiple DBs -- somewhat -- so this would be a good exercise for testing a new cross-DB abstraction). The problem is that I lack the time to do any of this, and no one else appears to be waiting in the wings to pick things up... - Jon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en.
