I’m sitting here planning what to do with the re-write of the Feedreader I wrote for university. Naturally, the storage solution is always going to be a contentious issue. The NoSql versus SQl debate plays a lot into it.
But, for the most part, i used Windows Azure tables and blobs for its simplicity over SQL Azure. In saying that, SQL is not my favourite thing in the world, so make of that what you will. But also, for a demonstrator application, the use of something completely new played in my hands very well.
So the re-write is also meant to be a demonstrator application. so the Windows Azure storage is staying.
But, not so fast. because Windows Azure Storage needs something. The way I used Tables and Blobs essentially was as a poor mans object database. Thus meant that there was a lot of leg work involved in this, not to mention tedious plumbing code. The fact is, I think that the is the most logical use case for Windows Azure Storage – where in metadata is stored in the tables and the object themselves are in the blobs.
What I would like to be added, then, is the ability to formalize this relationship in code. Some way of saying “hey, this value in this TableRow actually points to a blob in this container”. So I can call “getBlob()”, or something on a Row an get the blob back. Now, to be clear, I don’t mean this to be a foreign key relationship. I don’t want to cascade updates and deletes. And i certainly don’t want my hands tied by making the Blob Attribute column (or whatever) mandatory.
Now, this could be added right now. And in fact am considering doing that. But support for this in the Storage Client library would be nice. But weather backend support is needed, or in fact a good idea, is another question entirely. The implications of making such a fundamental change on the back end. For example, say you’ve exposed a table via OData. How do you expose the blob as well? And given the nature of the use case, the fact that it is needed on a table by table basis makes it much easier to limit any such functionality to the Tools library only.
I can hear you asking yourself why I’m asking for support in the Storage Client library if I can gin up and duct tape together some Extension Methods? I’m a big proponent of the idea that anything that we use in intact with software, be that actual applications or libraries we use in our code, has a Natural user interface. Think of it, the API methods that are exposed for us as developers to use are in fact a User Interface. so I’m asking for a better user interface that supports this functionality without me having to do the legwork for it. In so delivering support, it is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that the library code that Microsoft ships will be more efficient than whatever code I can write.
My final report on the project did call out VS Windows Azure Tools, mainly for not making my life easier. So I’m looking forward to the new version (1.3) and seeing how it goes, particularly with regard to storage.
Now performance-wise, the version I wrote last wasn’t exactly fast at retrieving data. I suspect that this was due to a) my own code in-efficiencies and b) the fact that my data wasn’t optimally (obviously) normalized. Its also probable that better use of MVC viewdata (actually, I think that should be “better use of MVC, period”) and caching will improve things a lot as well.