Sounds like a management problem.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #415,833 by static 12/3/16 5:05:28 AM 12/3/16 5:05:28 AM Reply	Sounds like a management problem. Surely the documentation told them they should use the stored procedures instead of direct inserts. It sounds like your architect is correctly upset, but possibly for the wrong reason. Data integrity can be done down in the database, if the app knows how to cope when the database says "No". It can be up in the app if it can cope with integrity broken from below (e.g. from an explicit insert). Wade.
Post #415,834 by drook 12/3/16 10:02:22 AM 12/3/16 10:02:22 AM Reply	You think? What if I told you there is no documentation of the requirements? How surprised would you be? -- Drew
Post #415,843 by static 12/3/16 10:20:51 PM 12/3/16 10:20:51 PM Reply	Not surprised at all. Which means that those complaining about using Inserts instead of the not-at-all-documented stored procedures kind of don't have all that much to complain about! :-D Though I'd be surprised if they were to take that to heart. Wade.

Are stored procs "hiding functionality"? - (drook) - (23) - Dec. 1, 2016, 09:58:23 AM EST

wag, the same as a shared library, you dont know where it came from -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 1, 2016, 10:39:13 AM EST

Interesting question. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Dec. 1, 2016, 10:43:42 AM EST

Better to manage that sort of problem through services - (malraux) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:29:20 PM EST

Depends on how they're managed. - (malraux) - (10) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:28:01 PM EST

And don't forget about sp's providing better performance on the database. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (9) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:37:54 PM EST

That depends - (malraux) - (8) - Dec. 1, 2016, 05:29:11 PM EST

For OLTP applications, I disagree, with MS Sql Server anyway. - (mmoffitt) - (7) - Dec. 2, 2016, 11:07:32 AM EST

Performance is the least of my concerns at this point - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 2, 2016, 02:39:34 PM EST

Until it isn't any more. :-) - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:59:35 AM EST

Performance != throughput - (malraux) - (4) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:58:19 AM EST

Interesting - (drook) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2016, 11:07:14 AM EST

I've looked at DB scale out, though not recently. - (static) - Dec. 5, 2016, 04:05:45 AM EST

Eventually the amount of work exceeds the capacity of a single machine to do it - (malraux) - Dec. 5, 2016, 09:15:44 AM EST

sure, lets take the speed out of the cpu and replace it in multiple small connected units, :-) -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 4, 2016, 05:15:50 PM EST

Implementation detail, someone else's problem. - (pwhysall) - Dec. 1, 2016, 02:01:23 PM EST

Who is responsible for what? - (crazy) - (5) - Dec. 2, 2016, 03:11:10 AM EST

I'm coming down on the side of your data integrity comment - (drook) - (4) - Dec. 2, 2016, 09:53:40 AM EST

Sounds like a management problem. - (static) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2016, 05:05:28 AM EST

You think? - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2016, 10:02:22 AM EST

Not surprised at all. - (static) - Dec. 3, 2016, 10:20:51 PM EST

Someone's going to be writing something that deals with integrity. - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 11:03:23 AM EST

Re: Are stored procs "hiding functionality"? - (mvitale) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2016, 06:08:26 PM EST

I used utPLSQL in a former life. - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:52:24 AM EST

Allow me to retort!
62 ms