>>Since I worked with remote views a lot in my VFP I got out of the select * habit early.
>
>I was not talking about selecting into the biz layer, but copying newly entered data into the backend again -
>as you probably realized ;-) Automatic rewrites of each update statement like the CA does for each changed ro is clearly better,
>but a * is better than listing ***all*** fields just for syntax needs
>
>>That said, as I was reading some Julie Lehrman stuff today on EF Code First and doing a walkthrough on the much needed Migrations that are in EF 4.3 caught myself thinking that I had become so comfortable now with TSQL and thinking in terms of workning directly on the backend that while some of the codefirst or even model first stuff is cool, I am still drawn to maintaining DB schema in the database and pushing up to the EF from there.
>
>It is cool only because so much automation is in place. But for me conceptually DD/schema based is clearly superior.
>Firmly on Hank's side on this - even if nearly all current fwk/ORM does it the other way.

Strataframe has a very nice SMO based tool called DataDeploymentToolkit which can crate packages that will update schema, sps etc along with deployment of app that requires the changes. I like it a lot as it integrates with the business objects in the framework such that you know if the BOs work in your app the package will put the database in a state to work with the changes when you deploy.

Perhaps the database migration stuff in EF ( or some third party add on for it ) will get there some day but right now the whole code first thing seems more trouble than it is worth for SQL Server back ends.

>
>>As to somebody else maintaining my code ... hey, I"m a hired gun - if they won't hire me to do it ...
>
>I sometimes advise the customer to either let the person responsible for this mess fix it,
>or get off my back and let me fix it so it does not break at every change
>or has 50 maintainance points for each schema change.
>
>>Apres moi, le tempete merdeux <g>
>
>For similar attitudes the advice is coupled with the hint that such fix
>could be argued to fall under unpaid guarantee work,
>as the code is below accpeted standards.
>Works rather well with large coder for hire groups,
>if the customer is one of the whales and has enough balls to demand unpaid fixes ;-)

Of course I was joking about the attitude. Actually I am insecure enough to hate the idea that *anybody* would come in after me, look at what I had done and be anything less than awed. <s> Besides, I want to be called back for new stuff because they are so happy, not dragged back in chains forged by their lawyers <g>