none
LINQ to SQL, XML, Objects..... why not just a single "LINQ to Entities"? RRS feed

  • Question

  • My understanding is that providers are available for LINQ to XML, SQL, Entities, Objects.... so I can access all of these data sources using the same C# code. Why then are there so many "LINQ to" variants? History? Certainly it matters to a Provider writer but probably not the developer. Please clarify.
     
    TIA,
     
    edm2
    Sunday, November 4, 2012 5:46 AM

Answers

  • Although Linq gives us a common language to work with in C# and VB .Net these queries need to be translated into the language of the datasource. For example T-SQL is different then the SQL that is used by Oracle and therefore needs to be translated differently for each. The sam is true for XML,  and Object. Also each data source may have extensions that are not supported by all other Linq implementations. 

      


    Fernando (MCSD)

    If a post answers your question, please click "Mark As Answer" on that post and "Mark as Helpful".

    • Marked as answer by edm2 Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:31 PM
    Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:24 PM

All replies

  • Although Linq gives us a common language to work with in C# and VB .Net these queries need to be translated into the language of the datasource. For example T-SQL is different then the SQL that is used by Oracle and therefore needs to be translated differently for each. The sam is true for XML,  and Object. Also each data source may have extensions that are not supported by all other Linq implementations. 

      


    Fernando (MCSD)

    If a post answers your question, please click "Mark As Answer" on that post and "Mark as Helpful".

    • Marked as answer by edm2 Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:31 PM
    Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:24 PM
  • Thank you Fernando.....

    Makes good sense.

    edm2

    Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:31 PM