What, that he specifically said it was originally 8 weeks coding and testing in ASP he migrated, but he in fact meant 1 week, and I believed him and you didn't? And then you never once admitted that my point still stood?
Of course I won't take that 'hard', I am proud of the fact that I try to admit when wrong. And amused when others find that difficult.
I find it rather instructive that all the MS-only folks *assumed* his original claim was not accurate, was in fact exaggerated. I just learned again to take a .NET success story with a grain of salt, and not take the claims presented as fact. This is a perfect example of why I don't trust the MS press releases that give no actual details.
When I say I spent 8 weeks coding and testing something, I mean I spent 8 weeks coding and testing something. The discussion was specifically about migrating the ASP code.
Apparently, to the MS-only world, that can mean, "total project time 8 weeks".
Odd, but if that's how ya'll think it's how ya'll think.
As far as the architecture is concerned, I still feel that if they plan to do any other DB reporting, a 3-tiered approach would have allowed for better performance, more code-reuse and better fault-tolerance. And allowed for a more flexible approach to be taken on the DB selection later.
You can do it in C#, without a doubt. I have no problem with that. But I still feel that a 3-tiered architecture always pays dividends, and is the best solution, in the long run.
If this is a single, isolated app and the company will never again need any other db reporting, then I can see why they chose to take a 'short cut' 2-tiered approach.
But I have a hard time believing any company out there has no need for heavy DB reporting. I interface with HR, Accounting and Project Control.