Lester Caine wrote:

>Dmitry - please bear in mind that Roman is looking at this from the
>point of view of an interface, NOT the end user. I have a similar
>problem with the PHP stuff. It's OK going one way or the other when you
>are designing the SQL, but when someone else is feeding unknown SQL into
>an interface (Java, PHP etc.) THEN we need to know what the SQL consists
>off. The point that Roman is trying to make is that as a bridge
>component we don't know what IS in the stored procedure, so you don't
>know how to handle it! All Roman is asking for is some way to know how
>to handle this situation?
>
>
>

I agree. What Roman is asking for is complete reasonable. It makes all
the sense in the world to extend RDB$PROCEDURES to include something
about what the procedure returns. RDB$PROCEDURE_TYPE is the obvious
candate.

That said, I'm afraid that FB2 has already left the station.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376