IT wrote:
It is totally unbeliveble that MS implement a half solution on the same topic - in two generations of the dev tools.
It's their way of doing things. Every time there is a new vs.net, I see smiling fake-nerds demoing some drag-n-drop 'programming' and think it's what developers want. I mean... who wants to drag a data-adapter on a webform and have sql generated right there inside the webform...
It is absolutely not usable in a professional App - Talking about complexibility - events getting fired all over the place - and the amauont of house keeping required to get it "almost working"
indeed. If you check out the demo-app I wrote, there is more code in there to keep the stuff running related to databinding then there is for managing the data. Still it can be helpful though, if you like grids..
The databinding in whidbey seems to be a lot better with the objectsource object to bind objects (like entities) to a control at design time. Still I doubt if it will work with any custom class... (even if it implements a given interface)
Frans , I belive you have done a good job actually trying to support this for the benefit of your customers - but frankly speaking - you should never allow features for databinding to stop features of no databinding related features.
Oh, don't worry, that won't happen I add databinding features as a plus, not as a must-have. That's also why entity objects do not implement IComponent, because that interface is not useful for a lot of implementations but required if you want to have design time support.
I will never use databinding for production stuff
I don't use it a lot either, just here and there for lists, however it requires a lot of code too sometimes and then a simple for loop is easier. Like the new search form here. The forums you can search in are added to the select box with a forloop, I couldn't get it right to bind to a set of data and combine 2 fields to 1... Ah well... databinding really gets bad when component vendors do not support databinding correctly. (not that MS does it correctly, but it's at least a 'standard' people want to comply with). ComponentOne comes to mind...