locked
Visual Studio LightSwitch - Final Release Soon?

    Question

  • Theres a date to Visual Studio LightSwitch becomes a official product?
    Monday, September 13, 2010 2:22 PM

Answers

  • There's actually not an estimated release date set for RTM.  We want to get Beta1 into your hands and hear your feedback on how close to done we are.  We also plan on having a Beta2.

    Cheers,
    -Beth


    Senior Program Manager, Visual Studio Community http://msdn.com/lightswitch http://msdn.com/vbasic http://msdn.com/vsto http://www.bethmassi.com
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:50 PM

All replies

  • I'd suspect sometime in 2011. The product is now moving towards Beta 2. And perhaps we will even see an RC (Release Candidate). So, I can't see it go to RTW in this year. Just me personal opinion!

    ..Ben


    WPF/Silverlight Insider
    Monday, September 13, 2010 2:57 PM
  • This is a VERY GOOD Beta 1, but I am sure they will have MAJOR changes before RTM.

    This "ride" has only just begun...

    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:41 AM
  • There's actually not an estimated release date set for RTM.  We want to get Beta1 into your hands and hear your feedback on how close to done we are.  We also plan on having a Beta2.

    Cheers,
    -Beth


    Senior Program Manager, Visual Studio Community http://msdn.com/lightswitch http://msdn.com/vbasic http://msdn.com/vsto http://www.bethmassi.com
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:50 PM
  • Good Morning Beth,

    RE:  We want to get Beta1 into your hands and hear your feedback on how close to done we are. 

    Your above sentence conveys that the LS team still needs more feedback from our community before Beta2 can be spec'd. 

    LS is very important to us.  You folks did a terrific job.  Logically, we need to know what more can we do to accellerate the process to get to Beta2 and an RC.

    Are there certain topics/features/functionality that you are waiting for us to provide feedback on?

    LS allows us to create apps SL biz apps in 1/10th the time of out-of-the-box SL. 

    LS supports "real world" continuous development with database changes that roll through the SQL Data Model->EF->Domain Classes->Domain Class MetaData->observable collections->integration with auto-generated ModelView management . . . etc.    All of this really is really smart and on target.

    The business toolkit XAML on top of SL XAML is a great idea. 

    The preset screen templates with prewired CRUD and Command Bar management are EXACTLY what every biz app developer needs.

    LS provides a required standard for biz app GUI.   As commercial app developers we need to build modules that look and function the same. 

    We need modular plug-and-play development so that we can write modules (GL, AP, AR, Inventory, HR, etc.) that work together.

    The menu security system needs to be expanded.

    The LS team has members from the Dynamics groups.  The Dynamics developers KNOW requirements for RAD biz app development.   Our livelyhood is based on providing businesses (our clients) with tailored solutions that integrate operations, accounting, web business, automated workflow, document management, CRM, etc.  Business is absolutely what drives the software industry.  The Dynamics teams know business and accounting as well deep technology.

    Silverlight 4 and the 2010 stack has provided a rock solid foundation for RIA mission critical business solutions.  It has been at least 12 years in the making with .NET and earlier DNA.

    LS is the last part that needs to be built to reach the goal of .NET providing scalable mission critical business applications for our Internet world.  We do need WF Designer integration with SL.

    If there are currently foundational architectural issues with the current LS namespaces, let's bring them into the open and resolve them.  There are 7 billion people waiting for better lives and more opportunity.  SL/LS is very cool.

    Thx,

       Garth

     

    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:28 PM
  • ..There are 7 billion people waiting for better lives and more opportunity.  SL/LS is very cool. 

    So true.
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:38 PM
  • Hi Garth,

    Thanks for the feedback, we are getting good feedback via the forums and connect from folks just like you but we always encourage to keep it coming!

    I know I can't wait for the product to release either but we still have work to do to get the product into top-notch ship quality and will have more features for you to test at Beta 2.

    Cheers,
    -Beth


    Senior Program Manager, Visual Studio Community http://msdn.com/lightswitch http://msdn.com/vbasic http://msdn.com/vsto http://www.bethmassi.com
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:17 PM
  • Well said, Garth!

    Beth, I think Garth was asking you if there are specific scenarios the team would like the more aggressive of us to follow up on. I know I have one specific item from Steve & Justin to test (Refresh over and over and look for association name changes or breaks), since I had experienced it once already.


    If you believe that I've answered your question, please remember to mark it as answered.

    MicroApplications, Inc. -- Information Systems Integration and Custom Software Development
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:29 PM
  • @bbackermai and Beth:  Yes, bbakermai is correct (many thanks for the clarification).

    I was just wondering if Beth (or other LS team members) wanted to provide the community with more direction on how we could better help to expedite Beta 2.

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:40 AM
  • To paraphrase Steve Ballmer.......

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, 

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer, Report Writer,

    :)

     

    Monday, October 25, 2010 12:34 AM
  • Take a look at this;

    Silverlight Report Viewer using View Model (MVVM)

    I am currently working on a Lightwitch implementation of this. However, it IS a "Report Writer" :)

    The key issues are that the code to create .rdlc reports is already inside Visual Studio. It is already very intuitive. The "hook" into LightSwitch is the issue.

    I think that having the report display in a popup window is usable, what do you think?


    http://www.adefwebserver.com

    http://lightswitch.adefwebserver.com

    Monday, October 25, 2010 12:46 AM
  • Hi,

    I think LS RTM will see the light in march-2011 or april-2011

    and i hope LS team provide reporting and printing tools,with reporting and printing support LS will controls the market.

    Monday, October 25, 2010 8:46 AM
  • I would not be surprised if Beta 2 it takes longer than that.

    Although Beta 1 was something of a revelation i suspect that it has thrown up something of a dilema.....

    "Is LS a RAD tool (Like MS Access) or is it actually a general purpose application framework from Microsoft?"

    It soumds to me like the LS team started off to develop an application framework, but ended up with something that looked a bit like Access.

    I do suspect that Microsoft will have to 'rationalise' the LS product, and maybe even split the product into two, to address two different communities. (Power Users and Professional Developers)

    The Power User RAD community require printing, report writing tools and WYSIWYG facilities.  One the other hand, the Professional Developers require an application framework with more generic & dynamic (on the fly) programming facilities.  These are clearly two totally different types of requirments.

    I sincerely hope that LS does not 'fall between two stools'.

    Rgds

    Ivor.

     

     

     

     

    Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:21 PM
  • I would not be surprised if Beta 2 it takes longer than that.

    Although Beta 1 was something of a revelation i suspect that it has thrown up something of a dilema.....

    "Is LS a RAD tool (Like MS Access) or is it actually a general purpose application framework from Microsoft?"

    It soumds to me like the LS team started off to develop an application framework, but ended up with something that looked a bit like Access.

    I do suspect that Microsoft will have to 'rationalise' the LS product, and maybe even split the product into two, to address two different communities. (Power Users and Professional Developers)

    The Power User RAD community require printing, report writing tools and WYSIWYG facilities.  One the other hand, the Professional Developers require an application framework with more generic & dynamic (on the fly) programming facilities.  These are clearly two totally different types of requirments.

    I sincerely hope that LS does not 'fall between two stools'.

    Rgds

    Ivor.

     

     

     

     

    Interesting theory, but it's too late to change the horse in the middle of  the run. LS team is basically hammering LS to make sure Beta 2 and RTM is a rock solid version.  I doubt any major changes or change of direction from what we have seen in Beta 1, will take place. Just more refinement.

    The massive interest in Beta 1, basically made a loud and clear message to the team, that people want/need a RAD application Development to built LoB apps. I'm sure this message has be heard very clearly.

    However, what direction LS takes after V1, is what I like to know... But they won't tell me! :-)

    ..Ben


    WPF/Silverlight Insider
    Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:21 PM
  • The LightSwitch strategy has stayed constant throughout: one horse, one rider, one destination. It is possible to serve developers of different profiles with this one product. A key aspect of that is that the "depth" pro will us LS to make light work of a lot of things and will supplement and expand using extensibility and VS Professional / Ultimate. We're not replacing VS, we're synergistic with it.

    Most teams of any size working on biz apps have the systems (tools and fx) guys and the app guys. Sometimes the same people do both, but typically they hate doing one or the other. For a good number of projects LightSwitch does everything that is needed that systems guys would have done, so only app builders are needed. For other projects the systems guys can build out LightSwitch using extensibility, VS Pro and built-in LightSwitch capabilities to support their apps guys.

    As for what the team is up to, in addition to polishing off some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support) we're heavily focused on perf, scale, stress and bug fixing (including getting bug fixes from partner teams). Getting a V1 of this breadth locked down is a lot of work, and we're making great headway.

    Steve

    Monday, January 03, 2011 12:52 AM
  • The LightSwitch strategy has stayed constant throughout: one horse, one rider, one destination. It is possible to serve developers of different profiles with this one product. A key aspect of that is that the "depth" pro will us LS to make light work of a lot of things and will supplement and expand using extensibility and VS Professional / Ultimate. We're not replacing VS, we're synergistic with it.

    Most teams of any size working on biz apps have the systems (tools and fx) guys and the app guys. Sometimes the same people do both, but typically they hate doing one or the other. For a good number of projects LightSwitch does everything that is needed that systems guys would have done, so only app builders are needed. For other projects the systems guys can build out LightSwitch using extensibility, VS Pro and built-in LightSwitch capabilities to support their apps guys.

    As for what the team is up to, in addition to polishing off some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support) we're heavily focused on perf, scale, stress and bug fixing (including getting bug fixes from partner teams). Getting a V1 of this breadth locked down is a lot of work, and we're making great headway.

    Steve


    Wow Steve, this wasn't shedding light on, but more like putting the spot light on, what's happening! Thank you very much indeed!!!

    Man, take your time on performance and scalability and stress test. That's where we (as solution providers) will get hammered by end users, if this this is slow or not performant.

    Your view of System & app developer is spot on and great to hear that LS is tailoring for both. (Not that I didn't know, but a bit of confirmation goes a long way). All in all, can't wait. Thank you guys for this product!

    ..Ben


    WPF/Silverlight Insider
    Monday, January 03, 2011 1:07 AM
  • some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support)

    I can build a server and deploy IIS/SQL Server with the best of them. but, even I will hit the "just deploy this to Azure" switch in a lot of cases if I know I wont get hit with a $600 a month bill.

    So please give me an 'Lite Azure account' with a CAP on the fees. I put my Windows Live info in, you already have my credit card because I am already purchasing stuff on my WP7 phone and my XBox, and click, click, click and I'm done. If the usage is caped at say $9 a month (of course I will get an email if I get near that and I can crank it up if needed), I will hit the switch, I promise :)

    Here is the use case, I drop by my uncle's company and click, click, click I put together a LightSwitch app for them and click, click, click I post it to Azure on their Windows Live account. They have a web server already but you just saved me 2-4 hours of deployment. MSFT gets the money.

    Of course later you will have the WP7 mobile LightSwitch templates and they can use the app on their WP7 phone and WP7 tablet (oops that was just wishful thinking there, excuse me :))


    http://www.adefwebserver.com

    http://lightswitch.adefwebserver.com

    Monday, January 03, 2011 1:33 AM
  • The LightSwitch strategy has stayed constant throughout: one horse, one rider, one destination. It is possible to serve developers of different profiles with this one product. A key aspect of that is that the "depth" pro will us LS to make light work of a lot of things and will supplement and expand using extensibility and VS Professional / Ultimate. We're not replacing VS, we're synergistic with it.

    Most teams of any size working on biz apps have the systems (tools and fx) guys and the app guys. Sometimes the same people do both, but typically they hate doing one or the other. For a good number of projects LightSwitch does everything that is needed that systems guys would have done, so only app builders are needed. For other projects the systems guys can build out LightSwitch using extensibility, VS Pro and built-in LightSwitch capabilities to support their apps guys.

    As for what the team is up to, in addition to polishing off some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support) we're heavily focused on perf, scale, stress and bug fixing (including getting bug fixes from partner teams). Getting a V1 of this breadth locked down is a lot of work, and we're making great headway.

    Steve

    Steve, I and more than a few folks find Azure interesting but not something we can use today. I recently posted on Channel9 about this as we had a thread that was talking about Azure and the cost of using it.  *IF* Lightswitch is going to use Azure then please know that several questions have not been addressed by that team about the billing and how we resolve problems with abuse - ie someone floods my account with bogus transactions so that i get a bill i cann not pay and have to close my account.  untill we developers have a clear route to handle that we are not going there.

    I like the model and concept of Azure but right now I can not see how it benefits me to take the monetary risk.

     

    Monday, January 03, 2011 3:44 PM
  • The LightSwitch strategy has stayed constant throughout: one horse, one rider, one destination. It is possible to serve developers of different profiles with this one product. A key aspect of that is that the "depth" pro will us LS to make light work of a lot of things and will supplement and expand using extensibility and VS Professional / Ultimate. We're not replacing VS, we're synergistic with it.

    Most teams of any size working on biz apps have the systems (tools and fx) guys and the app guys. Sometimes the same people do both, but typically they hate doing one or the other. For a good number of projects LightSwitch does everything that is needed that systems guys would have done, so only app builders are needed. For other projects the systems guys can build out LightSwitch using extensibility, VS Pro and built-in LightSwitch capabilities to support their apps guys.

    As for what the team is up to, in addition to polishing off some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support) we're heavily focused on perf, scale, stress and bug fixing (including getting bug fixes from partner teams). Getting a V1 of this breadth locked down is a lot of work, and we're making great headway.

    Steve

    Steve, I and more than a few folks find Azure interesting but not something we can use today. I recently posted on Channel9 about this as we had a thread that was talking about Azure and the cost of using it.  *IF* Lightswitch is going to use Azure then please know that several questions have not been addressed by that team about the billing and how we resolve problems with abuse - ie someone floods my account with bogus transactions so that i get a bill i cann not pay and have to close my account.  untill we developers have a clear route to handle that we are not going there.

    I like the model and concept of Azure but right now I can not see how it benefits me to take the monetary risk.

     


    I agree, I will NOT be using Azure for some time, until they become reasonable. A friend had used them for a couple of months, when someone had decided to watch certain training video a few times in China. His next bill came as $739. He switched to Amazon S3 and none of his bills has been over $35 in the past 9 months.

    So, I hope LS will NOT create a dependency on Azure, so MS can sell Azure through LS. This will back fire big time.


    WPF/Silverlight Insider
    Monday, January 03, 2011 4:00 PM
  • The LightSwitch strategy has stayed constant throughout: one horse, one rider, one destination. It is possible to serve developers of different profiles with this one product. A key aspect of that is that the "depth" pro will us LS to make light work of a lot of things and will supplement and expand using extensibility and VS Professional / Ultimate. We're not replacing VS, we're synergistic with it.

    Most teams of any size working on biz apps have the systems (tools and fx) guys and the app guys. Sometimes the same people do both, but typically they hate doing one or the other. For a good number of projects LightSwitch does everything that is needed that systems guys would have done, so only app builders are needed. For other projects the systems guys can build out LightSwitch using extensibility, VS Pro and built-in LightSwitch capabilities to support their apps guys.

    As for what the team is up to, in addition to polishing off some key beta 2 features (e.g. Azure support) we're heavily focused on perf, scale, stress and bug fixing (including getting bug fixes from partner teams). Getting a V1 of this breadth locked down is a lot of work, and we're making great headway.

    Steve

    Steve, I and more than a few folks find Azure interesting but not something we can use today. I recently posted on Channel9 about this as we had a thread that was talking about Azure and the cost of using it.  *IF* Lightswitch is going to use Azure then please know that several questions have not been addressed by that team about the billing and how we resolve problems with abuse - ie someone floods my account with bogus transactions so that i get a bill i cann not pay and have to close my account.  untill we developers have a clear route to handle that we are not going there.

    I like the model and concept of Azure but right now I can not see how it benefits me to take the monetary risk.

     


    I agree, I will NOT be using Azure for some time, until they become reasonable. A friend had used them for a couple of months, when someone had decided to watch certain training video a few times in China. His next bill came as $739. He switched to Amazon S3 and none of his bills has been over $35 in the past 9 months.

    So, I hope LS will NOT create a dependency on Azure, so MS can sell Azure through LS. This will back fire big time.


    WPF/Silverlight Insider


    Wow!

    exactly the problem in just a small way...

    now imagine if you wanted to hurt a small business or even a larger one....

    I saw the same problem with some other "cloud" packages i looked at.... cost is just way way to high.

    for  $700 I can buy a lot of web hosting with SQL for a year, perhaps not a dedicated server but if i am just starting then ....

     

    Monday, January 03, 2011 6:25 PM
  • So, I hope LS will NOT create a dependency on Azure, so MS can sell Azure through LS. This will back fire big time.

    Don't panic, the information out there is very clear:

    Today you can already deploy to an IIS 7.5. And with Beta 2 there will be more options: Windows Azure is one of them. Same is true for SQL. We will have the choice where LS stores its stuff: SQL Express, Full SQL Server, Azure SQL... you decide.

    Ueli

    Monday, January 03, 2011 10:21 PM
  • Don't panic, the information out there is very clear:

    Ueli

    No one is panicking...

    And I don't suppose you're speaking on behalf of MSFT what Beta 2 will be offering!

    ..Ben


    WPF/Silverlight Insider
    Monday, January 03, 2011 10:39 PM
  • And I don't suppose you're speaking on behalf of MSFT what Beta 2 will be offering!

    No, I am just reading and repeating what Steve just said a few lines before and what other Microsofties write here in the forum and on their blog about Hosting and Data Sources (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lightswitch/archive/2010/08/06/the-anatomy-of-a-lightswitch-application-overview.aspx and http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lightswitch/archive/2010/11/30/anatomy-of-a-lightswitch-application-part-4-data-access-and-storage-2.aspx)

    This gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling that Beta 2 will be ready to go in to the wild.

    Cheers,
    Ueli

    Monday, January 03, 2011 11:07 PM
  • Here's a more detailed article talking about what we're supporting for data sources: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lightswitch/archive/2010/11/30/anatomy-of-a-lightswitch-application-part-4-data-access-and-storage-2.aspx. As others have noted, SQL Azure is just one of several options, and you can put your middle tier on Azure or elsewhere.

    Steve

    Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:11 AM
  • Here's a more detailed article talking about what we're supporting for data sources: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lightswitch/archive/2010/11/30/anatomy-of-a-lightswitch-application-part-4-data-access-and-storage-2.aspx . As others have noted, SQL Azure is just one of several options, and you can put your middle tier on Azure or elsewhere.

    Steve


    Thanks Steve... great article to show our future customers
    Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:43 AM