Isn't LINQ to XSD a misnomer?

Jun 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM

AFAIU, LINQ to XSD is about querying XML files using static object classes generated from XSD files.

However, LINQ to XSD seems to imply that is about querying XSD files. I cannot think of a better name off the top of my head (LINQ to XML with Schemas? Argh.), but I'd give this some thought. It took me a while to realize my mistake, but then again, maybe that's just me.

Jun 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Yes, you are right -- the name is a bit of a misnomer.

When we decided on that name we were still early in the LINQ naming process.

In fact, things got renamed every now and then.

At some point, it become important to have "LINQ" in the name as much as schema or XSD.

So this is how it happened (if you want to hear a short story).

 

Cheers,

Ralf

 

Jun 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Hey, no problem, I'm a misnomer myself (if you don't get that I didn't guess your nationality).

Still, if you keep that name, I'd try and make sure every visitor understands the real purpose of LINQ 2 XSD after reading the first introductory paragraph, even assuming they make the same mistake I did.

maybe "Querying XML data using design-time type checking via XSD schema" or something along that line...

Stefan

Jun 25, 2009 at 11:20 PM

At one point, internally we called it XmlObjects I think, right Ralf?  That would perhaps be more descriptive of a name.   We were influenced heavily by the LINQ effort in development considering that Linq2Xsd relies on Linq2Xml as it's underlying data store.  Linq2Xml is a bit of a misnomer since, although it allows you to query xml, it is first and foremost a new xml data store (in memory xml api) and is most appropriately directly compared to XmlDocument (Microsoft's Managed XML DOM implementation). 

Oct 4, 2009 at 7:14 AM

> ”the name” (LINQ to XSD) ”is a bit of a misnomer. When we decided on that name we were
> still early in the LINQ naming process. In fact, things got renamed every now and then.
> At some point, it become important to have "LINQ" in the name as much as schema or XSD.”

Yes, but I guess that the problem is not the ”LINQ” part of the name  The great thing with ”LINQ to SQL”, “LINQ to EF” etc is that it provides ”model” safe queuing etc. of databases ”LINQ to XSD” does the same for XML so  I good name had been (if it had not already been taken) ”LINQ to XML”  (”LINQ to XML with XSD”). The odd creature here is what actually got the name ”LINQ to XML”. It is odd since there is no ”model unsafe” counterpart for databases?