tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393540894130950585.post980034842497290038..comments2024-03-22T00:23:29.865-07:00Comments on Never In Doubt: EFProf First Look: profiling a DevForce SL appWard Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10977457957771020146noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393540894130950585.post-34180376929553010252011-04-28T19:46:32.241-07:002011-04-28T19:46:32.241-07:00@Moi Wok - Your DevForce topic is way off topic. P...@Moi Wok - Your DevForce topic is way off topic. Please post it on our <a href="http://www.ideablade.com/forum/" rel="nofollow">forum</a>.<br /><br />Can't resist agreeing that Include syntax would be a nice touch.<br /><br />On the other hand, FindEntityGraph takes EntitySpans which are easy to create and are strongly typed, unlike Includes which are defined by magic strings.<br /><br />Please follow up on the forum; I won't publish further commentary on this subject as this post just is not the right place for it. I trust you understand.<br /><br />Thanks for using DevForce.<br /><br />WardWard Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10977457957771020146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393540894130950585.post-8832493898445658382011-04-28T03:23:59.997-07:002011-04-28T03:23:59.997-07:00I am new to DevForce.
This is a general question a...I am new to DevForce.<br />This is a general question and is not related to the blog entry.<br />I wonder if you can tell/direct me as to if, while designing DevForce, you ever considered to adopt Include() like syntax when it comes to finding graphs with FindEntityGraph()? Would Include() like syntax be more conviniet? What were your condirations against it?<br /><br />Regards,<br />MoiMoi Wokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03622180166635098304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393540894130950585.post-44136374773981079932011-03-12T06:45:38.513-08:002011-03-12T06:45:38.513-08:00A Nice Tool!A Nice Tool!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569943981300156946noreply@blogger.com