Re: procedure: expand all input arguments
From: okey <oldyork90_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c432378e-2f98-4c6e-b0c2-f8b2cdde377d_at_w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 21, 9:19 am, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 9:32 am, okey <oldyor..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 4:32 pm, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 11:57 am, okey <oldyor..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is there a generic way to expand all a procedure's input arguments.
> > > > We'd
> > > > like to create a general routine in our exception blocks that
> > > > report all the procedure input argument names and values. Unix shell
> > > > has $*, or
> > > > something like that; other languages have stack access, arguement
> > > > arrays and such.
> > > > Possible?
>
> > > Not the way you want to do it, however there are three views you could
> > > use to get such information:
>
> > > DBA_ARGUMENTS
> > > ALL_ARGUMENTS
> > > USER_ARGUMENTS
>
> > > These will provide the argument names and passed values for packages,
> > > procedures and functions.
>
> > > David Fitzjarrell
>
> > Thank you David, but you're such a tease.
>
> No, I'm not a 'tease'. I provided a starting point for you. It's up
> to you to do the necessary work.
>
> > What do you mean, "not the
> > way to do it".
>
> Show me exactly where I said that; my statement was:
>
> "Not the way you want to do it"
>
> meaning there is no 'expansion variable' for procedure parameters. I
> also provided three views to assist you in creating a way to report
> those parameter values. Again, it's YOUR responsibility to do your
> work.
>
> > Please suggest alternatives. We log errors in
> > production systems.
>
> As you should. And now you have access to three views that can report
> what those parameter values are when an error occurs.
>
> > We need more information to investigate these
> > errors. Collecting input values has been useful.
>
> And how have you been collecting those input values? Your original
> post was vague on that point. When you provide more detail on what
> you ARE doing then someone else can possibly suggest alternatives.
>
> David Fitzjarrell
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c432378e-2f98-4c6e-b0c2-f8b2cdde377d_at_w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 21, 9:19 am, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 9:32 am, okey <oldyor..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 4:32 pm, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 11:57 am, okey <oldyor..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is there a generic way to expand all a procedure's input arguments.
> > > > We'd
> > > > like to create a general routine in our exception blocks that
> > > > report all the procedure input argument names and values. Unix shell
> > > > has $*, or
> > > > something like that; other languages have stack access, arguement
> > > > arrays and such.
> > > > Possible?
>
> > > Not the way you want to do it, however there are three views you could
> > > use to get such information:
>
> > > DBA_ARGUMENTS
> > > ALL_ARGUMENTS
> > > USER_ARGUMENTS
>
> > > These will provide the argument names and passed values for packages,
> > > procedures and functions.
>
> > > David Fitzjarrell
>
> > Thank you David, but you're such a tease.
>
> No, I'm not a 'tease'. I provided a starting point for you. It's up
> to you to do the necessary work.
>
> > What do you mean, "not the
> > way to do it".
>
> Show me exactly where I said that; my statement was:
>
> "Not the way you want to do it"
>
> meaning there is no 'expansion variable' for procedure parameters. I
> also provided three views to assist you in creating a way to report
> those parameter values. Again, it's YOUR responsibility to do your
> work.
>
> > Please suggest alternatives. We log errors in
> > production systems.
>
> As you should. And now you have access to three views that can report
> what those parameter values are when an error occurs.
>
> > We need more information to investigate these
> > errors. Collecting input values has been useful.
>
> And how have you been collecting those input values? Your original
> post was vague on that point. When you provide more detail on what
> you ARE doing then someone else can possibly suggest alternatives.
>
> David Fitzjarrell
Particular, a tease and a disciplinarian. :-) OK OK David. Let me work some more on this. Thank you for putting me straight.
Joel - thanks fro your input too. Received on Thu Oct 21 2010 - 09:28:05 CDT