Devart Forums

I am a little confused about relationship between your different products. We are going to order dotConnect for Oracle (looks like we will get an approval for a site license), and for the purpose of managing Oracle entities it's all clear. But now comes our wish to support dual model. In fact changes to the model are often initiated from a SQL Server side. Right now I am manually managing CSDL/SSDL/MSL files (extracting, copying etc.) I know you have a separate Entity Developer for MS SQL. Will we have any advantage of it if we already have Entity Developer for Oracle as a part of dotConnect for Oracle? Do you see any scenario when both ED for Oracle and ED for MS SQL should co-exist on the same machine?

Oops... my trial expired just now. And in our organization it will take a couple of days to arrange the payment. I just sent a mail asking to extend trial period for few more days.

Entity Developer for SQL Server is a more convenient designer than EDM Designer (and LINQ to SQL Designer as well). It provides editable Storage part (in Entity models), code generation templates and naming rules support.
More over, the upcoming release build contains synchronization functionality. It is possible to edit conceptual model with automatic synchronization of mapping and storage parts in this build. The Update To Database wizard is able to execute the ALTER statements against the database in order to keep database up-to-date to model changes. The Generate Database form Model wizard will generate the CREATE script for database.
So, you will be able to create a model in SQL Server, update it if necessary and then just generate a creation script for Oracle.
As for the trial expiration, you can download the latest 5.70.190 release build with prolonged evaluation here.

Thank you for the extended trial. The payment is on the way.

Back to Entity Developer. Would you recommend then to have both Devart's ED for SQL and ED for Oracle (part of donConnnect) on the same machine where the entities are frequently changed?

Yes, in this scenario Entity Developer for SQL Server should be more convenient.

Thanks!