• Scott Guthrie has two new posts in his series on LINQ to SQL. The first covers updating the database using stored procs instead of dynamic SQL. I was somewhat surprised that there wasn’t the capability to auto-generate vanilla Insert, Update and Deleted procs, but I guess DBA’s probably hate that anyway. The second shows how to use ExecuteQuery to execute arbitrary SQL instead of using the cool LINQ query syntax. I’m doing a bunch of loosely-typed SQL work right now, so I’m going to take a deeper look at this.
• Speaking of LINQ, I just discovered this great series on IQueriable by Bart De Smet. It’s four months old, but takes an incredibly detailed look at what happens under the hood with LINQ. Bart also has a reference implementation of LINQ’s standard query operators as well as LINQ to Sharepoint.
• Dan Maharry has pulled together what looks like the definitive guide for really slimming down and speeding up your VPC. It’s XP specific, but I’d bet most of the guidance would also apply to WS03, which is what I mostly use in my VPCs. (via Larkware)
• Jimmy Nilsson thinks it’s the operations department that holds the power in today’s IT world. I agree 100% That’s why I value Dale’s input so much.
• Nick Malik wonders if it’s time to translate the Federal Enterprise Architecture for use in the commercial sector. My dad just retired from 5 years in the FAA and he thinks FEA is too high level to be particularly useful.
• The 2007 edition version of Scott Hanselman’s ultimate tool list is now available.
• A bunch of XNA Gamefest sessions are now available for on-demand viewing.

• I’m in Chicago today and tomorrow for a reunion of sorts. In my last job, I managed a group of external architects called the Microsoft Architecture Advisory Board (aka the MAAB). We discontinued the program a while back, but the core of the group found the program valuable enough they have continued to meet anyway. I found the MAAB meetings incredibly valuable and insightful, so I’m really excited to be invited to continue my involvement with the group.
• I picked up Bioshock Tuesday (Circuit City had it on sale) on my way to my bi-weekly campus excursion. My meetings were over around 2pm so I headed home early, expecting to surprise the kids. But Jules had decided to skip naps and go shopping with them. Her cell phone was dead, so I ended up at home with a couple of hours to myself and a brand new copy of Bioshock. Wow, is that a good game. Certainly deserving of the amazingly good reviews it’s garnered.
• Speaking of reviews, this transparently biased review of Bioshock over at Sony Defense Farce Force is frakking hilarious. Somehow, I doubt their dubious review will stem the tidal wave of Bioshock’s well-deserved hype. Can’t wait to read their Halo 3 review.
• Pat Helland writes at length on master-master replication. I reformated it into PDF so I could read it – the large images were messing up the text flow on my system. As usual for Pat, there’s gold in that thar post. His thoughts on DAGs of versions and vector clocks as identifiers are very exciting. However, I think he glosses over the importance of declarative merging. I would think programmatic merge would likely be non-deterministic across nodes. If so, wouldn’t you end up with two documents with the same vector-clock identifier by different data?
• Joe McKendrick points to a few people who predict the term “service-oriented” will eventually be subsumed under the general heading of “architecture”. Not to brag, but I made that exact same prediction almost three years ago.
• Erik Johnson thinks that SOA 2.0 centers on transformational patterns. The idea (I think) is that if systems “understand each other more deeply”, then we can build a “smarter stack” and design apps via new constructs to promote agility and simplicity. Personally, I’m skeptical that we can define unambiguously system semantics except in the simplest scenarios, but Erik talks about using “graph transformation mathematics” to encode semantics. I don’t know anything about graph transformation mathematics, but at least Erik has progressed beyond hand waving to describing the “what”. Here’s looking forward to the “how”.
• New dad Clemens Vasters somehow finds time to implement an XML-RPC binding for WCF 3.5. I was encouraged that it didn’t require any custom attributes or extensions at the programmer level. Of course, XML-RPC fits semantically into WCF’s interface based service model, so it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that it didn’t require any custom extensions. But did it need WCF 3.5? Would this work if recompiled against the 3.0 assemblies?
• Phil Haack writes a long post on Duck Typing. VB9 originally supported duck typing – the feature was called Dynamic Interfaces – when it was first announced, but it was subsequently cut. I was really looking forward to that feature. Between it and XML Literals, VB9 was really stepping out of C#’s shadow. I guess it still is, even without dynamic interfaces.
• Since I’ve been doing some LINQ to XML work lately, I decided to go back and re-write my code in VB9 using XML literals. While XML literals are nice, I don’t think they’re a must have. First, LINQ to XML has a nice fluent interface, so the literals don’t give you that much cleaner code (though you do avoid writing XElement and XAttribute over and over.) Second, I find VB9′s template syntax (like ASP <%= expression %>) clunky to work with, especially in nested templates. Finally, I like the namespace support of XNames better. As far as I can tell, VB9 defines namespaces with xmlns attributes just like XML does. So I’m not dying for literal XML support in a future version of C#. How about you?

I’m doing a bunch of database / XML stuff @ work, so I decided to use to VS08 beta 2 so I can use LINQ. For reasons I don’t want to get into, I needed a way to convert arbitrary database rows, read using a SqlDataReader, into XML. LINQ to SQL was out, since the code has to work against arbitrary tables (i.e. I have no compile time schema knowledge). But XLinq LINQ to XML helped me out a ton. Check out this example:

const string ns = "{http://some.sample.namespace.schema}";

while (dr.Read())
{
    XElement rowXml = new XElement(ns + tableName,
        from i in GetRange(0, dr.FieldCount)
        select new XElement(ns + dr.GetName(i), dr.GetValue(i)));
}

That’s pretty cool. The only strange thing in there is the GetRange method. I needed an easy way to build a range of integers from zero to the number of fields in the data reader. I wasn’t sure of any standard way, so I wrote this little two line function:

IEnumerable<int> GetRange(int min, int max)
{
    for (int i = min; i < max; i++)
        yield return i;
}

It’s simple enough, but I found it strange that I couldn’t find a standard way to generate a range with a more elegant syntax. Ruby has standard range syntax that looks like (1..10), but I couldn’t find the equivalent C#. Did I miss something, or am I really on my own to write a GetRange function?

Update: As expected, I missed something. John Lewicki pointed me to the static Enumerable.Range method that does exactly what I needed.

• I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry at Nick Malik’s definition of politecture. I mean, it’s funny so I’m laughing, but it’s so true that it makes me want to cry.
• Don Box comments on retiring the tenets. It’s good to see him say “please God tell me we can do better” than CLR interfaces or WSDL.
• Looks like the P2P APIs are finally getting the managed treatment in .NET FX 3.5. A long time ago, John deVadoss asked me what an enterprise system like CRM might look like if it used a peer-to-peer approach instead of client-server. If I had any free time, I’d prototype one out on this API. (via Mike Taulty)
• Scott Guthrie goes back to his LINQ to SQL series to tackle Stored Procs and UDFs. Being able to use UDFs inline with LINQ queries is very cool. However, it seems to me that LINQ discourages the use of stored procs. As a developer, I’d rather write LINQ queries than stored procs, if I can. The probably puts me at odds with DBAs who’d rather all DB access be via stored procs they control.
• Soma writes about new MSBuild enhancements in VS08: multi-targeting and parallel build.
• I just discovered Vista Battery Saver. Basically, it turns off Aero and Sidebar when you’re on battery. I’m traveling to Chicago next week, so we’ll see if it has much impact on my battery life. (via Plenty of Code and Larkware)

• I forgot to add a number to my last morning coffee post. However, after extensive research, I have determined that it was #108. So thing are continuing as usual today with #109. On the other hand, do you really want development and architecture opinions from a guy who can barely count? 😄
• The finalists in the Dream-Build-Play contesthave been announced. I haven’t played any of them yet (some are available for download) but they several of them sure look good.
• And speaking of gaming, MS announced an Xbox 360 price drop yesterday. So if you want to get in on some of the XNA action, here’s your chance (or you could just build for your PC – take your pick).
• Finally on the gaming front, if you’re not busy Monday you can watch the first day of Gamefest 2007 online. Get the scoop on XNA 2.0 as well as the new XNA networking support. I, alas, am busy Monday so I’ll have to catch it on demand.
• On to, you know, actual geek stuff things. Scott Guthrie seems to have retired his LINQ to SQL series and moved on to LINQ to XML. He shows how to build an RSS reader application with LINQ to XML. An oldie demo, but a goodie.
• Wanna learn F#, there’s a whole site of samples up on CodePlex. (via Don Syme)
• Jeff Atwood is annoyed at how many different products you have to install to get a current & complete setup of VS 2005. Of course, MS shipped two parts of that stack since VS05 shipped (TFS & DBPro), three service packs (VS05 SP1, SQL 05 SP2 and DBPro SR1) and a major OS upgrade (VS Vista update). Doesn’t the same thing happen with any shipping product after a few years? BTW, if this is such a huge hassle, I wonder why Jeff doesn’t create a slipstreamed VS installer?
• Udi Dahan has a great post on estimation where he claims “Developers don’t know how to estimate.” No argument, but the way he phrases it sounds like it’s the developer’s fault they suck at estimation. It’s not. Developing – by definition – is building something you’ve never built before. Is it any surprise we suck at estimating how long it will take us to do something we’ve never done before?