If you’re at all interested in Oslo, you may be looking forward to the 2009 PDC to see the direction it is going to take. As of yesterday, we got a small preview of that direction – and to be honest, without having all the nitty-gritty details that I hope will come out of the PDC, I’m concerned and disappointed – and I’m not the only one who feels this way.
“M” Interacting with the Database – Please Don’t!
I understand that using DSLs and modeling is an excellent way to capture and manipulate data that can be used by applications. However, this quote from Doug’s post is what concerns me (emphasis is my doing):
Time after time we heard that “M” would make interacting with the database easier
The “M” language and tooling should have absolutely nothing to do with interacting with the database. The fact that Microsoft has heard “time after time” that people would like to use “M” to interact with the database strikes me as a problem with many people not understanding what I believe “M” was envisioned to do and should be used for. “M” (MGrammer, MGraph, MSchema) and its supporting tooling should be about the definition and runtime representation of models and languages used to create and manipulate instances of models. It is my strong opinion that this functionality should have no direct dependency on databases or database interaction. The core foundational value I saw in Oslo was a shared platform providing:
- A DSL definition language (MGrammer)
- A lowest common denominator representation of a model (MGraph)
- Model schema definition and validation (MSchema)
- Tooling (Intellipad, m.exe, possible VS integration, etc…)
What is so sadly ironic is that Microsoft recognized this from the beginning. During many presentations at the 2008 PDC, the bond between developers and text and text editors was mentioned. Microsoft knew they needed to have a first class story to tell when it came to text, and that was how “M” was born.
The Repository and Quadrant
My opinion of Repository is that it is a mistake to try to tackle Repository with the first release of Oslo. Even during the 2008 PDC presentations it felt like the Repository was a solution in search of a problem. I understand the value in being able to use models to define runtime execution characteristics of an application (e.g. HTML, XAML, WCF Service Descriptions, etc), but how many have you seen that execute their models from a SQL Server database?!?!? There might be a small class of applications where it makes sense to store and execute a model from a database, but my guess is that more often than not a model would either be stored in or transformed into something that looks nothing like a database. Perhaps it would be embedded into an application redistributable as code or an embedded resource or persisted as a file. Perhaps it is never persisted. Regardless, if the model is to be persisted, that should be a separate responsibility. Repository is a “nice to have”, but honestly I can’t see using it much, if at all.
As for Quadrant, I don’t feel versed enough in Quadrant’s capabilities to voice a strong opinion. I do see value it having a common tool for visualizing and manipulating models. However, I would spend my “development dollars” less on Quadrant for Oslo’s first release, and more on the “M” language and tooling.
Concerned, but Hopeful
Douglas has made it clear that there is more information coming about the “M” and DSL story. I for one hope that “M” can stand alone from Repository, Quadrant, SQL Server, and anything to do with databases. If this is not the case, I hope the Oslo team hears loud and clear that it should make some fundamental changes.
However, if “M” does stand alone, this post and the comments from others should help to keep it that way – even when “time after time” people associate “M” with database interaction.