Hi Bonnie,

I could be wrong, but it seems like you wouldn't be able to create SQL statements "on the fly" when using Type DataSets. The SQL needs to be defined at design time rather than at runtime. I'm not thinking of parameters for conditions, but rather specifying the list of fields, ORDER BY, or GROUP BY clauses at runtime. I think you have the flexibility to do that with plain DataSets, but not Typed DataSets. Is that correct?

Also, if you are doing a SELECT * FROM MYTABLE and the structure of the underlying table changes, you have to update the Typed DataSet, correct? That's why I think they are more maintenance.

I do agree that the IntelliSense, etc. that comes with Typed DataSets is nice, so I'm wondering what most people are using. Thanks for your opinion.

>Joel,
>
>Definitely Typed DataSets are better, IMHO. Why would you say that plain DataSets are more flexible? I'd think it would be just the opposite. Anyway, I like that you get better Intellisense and typing with the Typed DataSets. That's my opinion anyway. =)
>
>~~Bonnie
>
>
>>For those of you that have been using .NET for a while now: Do you find yourself using Typed DataSets, or sticking with plain DataSets for more flexibility and lower maintenance? I may start working more with .NET soon, and I'd like to know if a consensus has developed regarding this issue. Or is this one of those things like Remote Views vs. SQL Pass-Through?
>>
>>Thanks.