Re: New Procedurs With Version# In Name

From: joel garry <>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Mar 10, 9:07 pm, "" <> wrote:
> So when my developers need to make a change to a procedure, instead of
> just recompiling the procedure they want to create a new procedure
> named like sp_procedure2 and then use the new procedure in their
> application.
> They want to do this so that they don't mess up any other application
> that might be calling the same procedure.  And then when they can get
> around to updating the other applications they will use the new
> procedure.  I was wondering if anybody else does this and what you
> guys think. I am against it but I am getting overruled.  My database
> will look confusing, source safe will be confusing, and now I have to
> maintain multiple procedures when something needs to change.

Even Oracle can't get this right. The first two off the top of my head, statistics generation and job control.

It does make sense for major functionality changes, though Vladimir's point about overloading is significant for more modern versions of Oracle, for well-designed systems. (Did I just negate that for the majority of systems?)

I agree with the chorus for version control. I've been in large and small shops, and this is the reason for an integration database, in addition to production and QA and developers own. Even in small shops with a simple informal system, miscommunication inevitably screws things up.

The Death part of the System Design Life Cycle is often overlooked. I also have a lot of code where people didn't want to change procedures to the new way, so old and new ways are kept, sometimes through several generations of major ERP upgrades, sometimes with the upgrades adding the same or conflicting capabilities as older bespoke code. The real fun begins when they buy a new module that expects the new code, with expectations it will just plug in because we are at that version.


-- is bogus.
Those darn "overpaid, overpriced IT people"!
Received on Thu Mar 11 2010 - 11:17:41 CST

Original text of this message