Re: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Oh Rumpi, you are a brave man! "VIEW" is a four letter word in my book and I find them more abused than...than...dynamic SQL! :)
I do appreciate your input though.. I think views are easy to use and have their benefits for developers, but when it comes to trouble-shooting performance problems people have had challenges with? In my experience, about 40% of them have VIEWS as their foundation... :)
"Go away before I replace you with a very small and efficient shell script..."
- On Mon, 11/23/09, Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens_at_gmail.com> wrote:
From: Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?
Cc: "cary millsap" <cary.millsap_at_method-r.com>, michael.fontana_at_enkitec.com, mwf_at_rsiz.com, "oracle Freelists" <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 8:07 PM
Here's a counter opinion from a developer.
I've been working in a shop that only allowed procedure/function/package interfaces to the database. That's all and very well and good if time and budgets are not issues. I have yet to see a web development environment who's development wizards do not work better with a table/view than a function/procedure interface to the underlying data.
I would submit that a nice compromise is to use views with instead of triggers. That can provide the best of both worlds -- access to development environment productivity tools like code wizards while maintaining a pseudo procedure/function interface to the application.
I am now thinking that this thread is missing the main point. There should be no SQL queries whatsoever in the application. It should only call functions, procedures and packages with business rules stored in the database.
I'll leave on my own now, before those with development biases me out.....
-- Rumpi Gravenstein -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sun Nov 29 2009 - 21:22:31 CST