>So your doing something more along the lines of DAL.Update(DataSet)?

Yeah, more or less.

>Do you not use BIZ objects?

Or sure, I use Biz objects ... but not for databinding to the UI.

~~Bonnie




>>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.
>
>So your doing something more along the lines of DAL.Update(DataSet)?
>
>That would still be more intuitive to me than a table adapter.
>
>>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.
>
>I don't really know what I want yet, I was just out googling <g>
>
>It seemed like a common setup.
>
>Do you not use BIZ objects?
>
>I haven't yet, but I do have one application that might benefit from the concept.
>
>>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>
>
>Nah that's fine, stick to what you know.