Re: Passing Parameters

On Aug 27, 9:34 pm, "fitzjarr..._at_cox.net" <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 8:08 am, Mtek <m..._at_mtekusa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 3:54 am, Tim X <t..._at_nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>
> > > sybra..._at_hccnet.nl writes:
> > > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Mtek <m..._at_mtekusa.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>It just seems totally f**ked up.   I mean, I should be able to create
> > > >>a type in every schema and have the database be smart and use the
> > > >>local type when needed, and when arrays are passed, they use the type
> > > >>in the receiving schema.......seems pretty straight forward to
> > > >>me.......
>
> > > > What you 'think' you should be able to do is not important. What is
> > > > implemented and *described* in the documentation, you refuse to read
> > > > ,is.
> > > > Now when you have two identically named types, one 'local' as you call
> > > > it, and one 'global' you are definitely  going to create havoc.
> > > > Due to precedence rules the type name is likely resolved only once
> > > > within he procedure.
>
> > > > So it is not f**ked up. You just scr**wed up the whole thing by taking
> > > > the shortcut to the keyboard, without reading and understanding.
>
> > > Even worse, consider the maintenance nightmare you would be creating!
> > > Doing what the OP suggests now means that every developer has to know
> > > about *every* definition in every schema and when a change is made,
> > > ensure all of them are updated. If any are missed, what sort of error
> > > message would be given (assuming it can detect such errors).
>
> > > Whats the bet that he isn't using %TYPE, %ROWTYPE either?
>
> > > Tim
>
> > > --
> > > tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> > Well Tim, I did not write the application.  But, going on what
> > everyone has said here, I've just created the type on one of the
> > schemas and then created a synonym and granted access to that
> > type......all seems to be well now.
>
> > I can understand what Oracle is saying and all, but the concept seems
> > simple.  Which goes back to the saying, you can't have your cake and
> > eat it too.....
>
> > Thanks all for your input..- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You most certainly can have your cake and eat it, too.  I do, all of
> the time.  What you cannot do is eat your cake and have it, too.
>
> David Fitzjarrell

Aren't those the same thing? Received on Wed Aug 27 2008 - 16:46:44 CDT