views:

87

answers:

1

I'm working on a new project right now and am thinking of using an ORM beyond that of Linq to SQL. I've currently got Linq to SQL wired up into a repository, but I'm not loving the way my Repo has to match my DB structure. (Example: I have a join between Users and OpenID's, and I need a 2 classes ( one for each table) and a class for the View that joins them).

I've heard some good things about Telerik's OpenAccess ORM and I do have a license for it (though outdated - Latest Version: 2009.1 405 (Apr 5, 2009))

My questions are...

Has anyone used it?
How is the learning curve?
Is it a good tool for my above scenario?
Is the version I have ok without having to update my license?

+1  A: 

Our company is a $2.5B solar manufacturing company. When we started designing v2 of the application framework backend that all our applications would be based on, we took a look at the Telerik ORM. I spent a couple weeks looking at it. Our conclusion was that it was too complex, and a little flaky, for our needs. We went with L2S and have not regretted it. L2S has provided all the capabilities we need and is simple and straight forward. IMO, it's too bad Microsoft is spending so many resources on Entity Framework, because they have a winner in L2S.

Randy Minder
so Linq to SQL works fine with you even with the limitation of having One Class per Table/View?
rockinthesixstring
Yes it does. When we need to create a "composite" entity/class, a class comprising data from several tables, we normally create a view, and treat the view as our composite entity. This also allows us to hide the complex joins in a view instead of Linq.
Randy Minder
Thanks. This is what I have been doing so far. I was just looking to see if there were benefits to using the OA license that I have.
rockinthesixstring