And what's wrong w/stored procs?

Post #146,982 by mmoffitt 3/18/04 5:16:31 PM Reply	And what's wrong w/stored procs? I know, I know, I'm old. I'm not "with it". ;-) bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #147,006 by tuberculosis 3/18/04 6:43:52 PM Reply	Nothing if people would use them but they tend to put all the logic in the UI because they can only cope with on programming model at a time. The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay
Post #147,007 by deSitter 3/18/04 6:51:41 PM Reply	grin -drl
Post #147,044 by mmoffitt 3/19/04 8:43:39 AM Reply	Is that the reason? I swear I've never understood why people treat databases that way. Friends of mine have called me anal because I never let anyone have access to base tables no matter how small the application. Every table, at minimum, has insert, update and delete sp's, and at least a view or two with select only permissions (that's a simplification, but you get the idea). I'm working right now with 5 developers who have "considerable database experience". None of them have ever used stored procedures. In fact, 2 of them don't know what they are! I've always been amazed whenever I see a database that doesn't have a single stored procedure in it. But I've seen a hell of a lot more of those than I have any other kind. <sigh> bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #147,106 by tuberculosis 3/19/04 4:13:39 PM Reply	Amounts to ignorance usually. They only know the language they code the app in. SQL is a whole other domain and their hammer doesn't fit that nail. As an example, an app I've taken over has all of the queries/calls stored in a resource file along with a special parameter type specification string. These could all have been stored procedures, (and sort of are stored procs but they're not stored in the db) but I think the developers were not acquianted with sp's and so they load them up as strings and cache them as jdbc prepared statements. OTOH, I seldom create sp's either as I generally use something like cayenne that handles sql generation based on db neutral specifications and metamodels. I don't necessarily believe in wrapping all access to tables in sp's but I most strenuously object to the occurrence of "select *" in production code (much more common than you might think and a major cause of breakage). I'm also kind of distrustful of sp's in postgres as they don't get checked for sanity until invoked and thus latent bugs can hide fairly easily. The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay
Post #147,114 by mmoffitt 3/19/04 4:52:47 PM Reply	I guess it's my upbringing. I don't necessarily believe in wrapping all access to tables in sp's... My first real job using a database was in the health industry. Medical information about individuals, for reasons beyond my comprehension, is of a highly sensitive nature. We had to do all we could to look down access to data - any data, no matter how irrelevant. I've wrapped all access to tables in sp's and views ever since. IMO, it harms nothing and can help tremendously. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #147,118 by tuberculosis 3/19/04 5:29:42 PM Reply	I don't get your rationale (new thread) Created as new thread #147117 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=147117\|I don't get your rationale] The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Welcome to IWETHEY!