John,

The main reason that I don't advocate putting all the DataAccess stuff in the DataSets themselves is because of the fact that I believe a DataSet should be a disconnected entity. A DataSet class is the object that I use to pass the data between the back-end and the front-end. The DataSet class has no idea *where* it's data comes from and has no idea how to save that data. That part of it is all handled in the DataAccess class.

Now, it sounds like you want to have a different architecture. You want to use Biz objects as the mechanism for data transfer between back-end and front-end. That's fine, a lot of people do it that way. I'm in the other camp though.

Perhaps someone who advocates the Biz object style of data transfer and UI data-binding can chime in here and give you some pointers. I'd hate to recommend anything along those lines simply because I don't do it that way and consequently my advice in those matters would just be off the top of my head (and probably be wrong) and would not come from any experience I would have had in the 5+ years I've been doing .NET.

I hope that doesn't sound like a cop-out. <g>

~~Bonnie





>Part of what attracted me to this thread was the admonishment not to use table adapters. They seem counter intuitive to me. I would have expected to call datatable.update() or dataset.update() and have the object update itself.
>
>I already have my primary dataset subclassed. Do you think it would be a bad idea to add fill, insert, update methods directly to that class?
>
>I was thinking that if I did it that way it would simplify the logic of my program and make it easier to hook in things like biz objects and data access layers as I develop them.
>
>
>>>Hmm... I think what I'm not getting is what the .XSD is used for. I had assumed it was used by the IDE for creating the DataSet.Designer.cs file, are you using the .XSD at run time in your programs?
>>
>>No, you're right. The .xsd is used by the IDE to generate a Typed DataSet. I was just talking about another way of creating the .xsd (programmatically with a utility). End result is the same.
>>
>>>I appreciate your help on this, there is so much to understand when you are getting ready to write decent sized apps in a new language. Understanding the basics of how to lay things out in the new system really helps!
>>
>>No problem, you're welcome. Starting out with the correct architecture right from the beginning certainly makes developing a new app much easier! =0)
>>
>>~~Bonnie