"Bill Lucas" <WCLucas_at_coolblue.com> wrote in message
news:Jt%q9.28997$Lg2.7243548_at_news2.news.adelphia.net...
> This we tried to do. No non compliant datatypes (i.e. bit), simplistic
> naming conventions, no proprietary MS functions (with the exception of
> FOR XML), I am still steeling myself for a complete rewrite, and
> telling the higher ups that it is going to be required. I wrote it
> once so it should go at least a little quicker right, what with an
> unfamiliar RDBMS and coding language ; ) Ahh what the heck, its only
> another 6 to 12 months of my life.
It will be a pain, but it seems likely to me that your approach of putting
business logic in SP's and having IIS/COM do the brokering presentation will
pay dividends. It may well mean that of your 500 procedures 450 have
entirely different implementations :( but thats the advantage of abstraction
(honest). The alternative write it all in sql92 minimum level and ignore the
product you are running on (after all all database servers,operating
systems,web servers and workstations are the same aren't they) seems to me
to be far madder but then what would I know?
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
Received on Tue Oct 15 2002 - 16:33:17 CDT
