mountain man wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>>... even if your business logic is held in stored procedures, you still
>>in effect have two separate areas to update when schemas change. If you
>>change the table designs, you also have to change the stored procedures
>>to reflect those changes. The fact that they are stored in the database
>>rather than externally is a minor point, is it not?
>
> No, it is a major time-and-cost-saving factor, because potentially all
> changes are accessible to the RDBMS, and in theory can be scripted.
>
> And if they can be scripted, perhaps one day they can be automated
> and scheduled, rather than being performed by a DB specialist.
So let's put sources and changes to them in some tables.
Very good - this is what version control tools do.
Any time-and-cost-saving beyond that?
Received on Sun Jun 05 2005 - 04:59:24 CDT
