IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Duplication of information
Suppose that I want to add a field. Someone else adds it to the table. I have to then add it to the view, insert procedure, update procedure, and possibly a null procedure. I further add it to the object-relational mapping layer, and then to the unit test. That's 5-6 files.

If the object-relational mapping layer could also do the job that the stored procedure does. That would cut out 2-3 edits. Furthermore those are the biggest edits.

If I was reworking the system, I think that you could still have stored procedures, and have them be autogenerated from code. However the system already exists, and at present it is easier not to have to rebuild it.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Must depend on what you're doing.
If you're always updating the entire row, that's different than DML that does specific things (which is what our system does, for the most part).

For situations where we do make changes wholesale, we are moving to a PL/SQL object that handles the inserts/updates/etc., which is autogenerated from the table DDL. We also create a Java proxy for this object using the same script.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Discussion topic: data-aware controls on forms - (admin) - (31)
         How active? Context? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Re: How active? Context? - (admin) - (2)
                 Are you really asking why Access is a bad idea? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     Whoops. - (admin)
         Bad idea. - (mmoffitt) - (18)
             Implementation vs effect - (ben_tilly) - (17)
                 Consider what goes on in most such setups. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                     Don't be sure about the surely - (ben_tilly) - (11)
                         Re: Don't be sure about the surely - (admin) - (4)
                             That I agree with - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                 Why more? - (admin) - (2)
                                     Duplication of information - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         Must depend on what you're doing. - (admin)
                         I can't add much to what Scott said. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                             Then see my response to Scott - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                 I did. And how? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                     Ah, good point - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                         Problem is rollback - (drewk) - (1)
                                             That's only an argument for a wrapper - (ben_tilly)
                 Er, what headaches? - (admin) - (3)
                     Depends how you're set up - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                         Re: Depends how you're set up - (admin) - (1)
                             More moving parts - (ben_tilly)
         always thought that all forms should be a view of the table - (boxley)
         Depends on the kind of data - (ChrisR) - (2)
             Mostly agree - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                 Love 'impedance mismatch' ! - (Ashton)
         You didn't specify stateful or stateless system - (drewk) - (2)
             Stateful. - (admin) - (1)
                 Then the issue is multi-column constraints - (drewk)
         Neat idea, but marginal in practice - (JayMehaffey)

Hail entropy!
140 ms