Please stop emphasizing the SQL Mapping part of Microsoft “Oslo”

Just my random reaction to 2009 Lang.NET Symposium – Language and Data.

As all of us know these days, Oslo is about a language, a repository and Quadrant. We all know the hard parts are the language and quadrant.

I have the gut feeling that the repository just is about the data backing for  the glue between M and Quadrant. This is the tool that has the potential to bring in money and I do understand it needs a repository.

But since PDC we have not heard anything about Quadrant, so for now all is about the language “M”. We also agree on that we won’t model customers and orders in Quadrant.

So why the heck do we still have to stand all that SQL mapping demos?

Just show us the modeling part… And show us Quadrant as soon as you’ve got something to show.


4 thoughts on “Please stop emphasizing the SQL Mapping part of Microsoft “Oslo”

  1. I don’t disagree, but I think the M=>SQL is an important story (as my new MGrammar article due out this week on the devcenter will attest). Most people I run into that are trying to grok Oslo keep thinking they have to build runtimes to parse and consume the AST…where the SQL modeling stuff fits into an easy way to take MGrammar and store it in a DB. They they can write the code they’re used to. Using the runtime data from the DB is the usual story and being able to describe those types is part of that story.

  2. I also think M=>SQL ist important. But not as important for DSLs than for other structured data.

    When modelling the big picture and having mixed representations in text and graphics, than truly the SQL part is important. But when using DSLs for “programming”, for example within VS, I can’t yet imagine that I want to have my SVN replaced with Oslo Repository. But who knows.

  3. Hi,

    indeed Oslo being SQL-Enabled instead of bringing another API (E.g. .NET-only) is great. I have been working with MS Repisitory 2.0 and 3.0 in the past an it had limitations because of this. Other Repositories like Enabler or MOF-based do have same issue. As soon as it has an API that is not SQL bulk-inserts and the like get as complicated and time consuming as with ORM Mappers.

    I posted a detailed post on Oslo today – were you can find more info.



  4. Pingback: What is left of Microsoft “Oslo”? What now with SQL Server Modeling? (Early 2010) « Random Braindrops by Lars C.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s