Subject | Re: To SP or not |
---|---|
Author | johnsparrowuk |
Post date | 2004-06-02T10:28:39Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "peter_jacobi.rm"
<peter_jacobi@g...> wrote:
should be in the database! Although of course it is very attractive
to put multiple sql statements in a sproc and save all that object
manipulation in your client / app layer code.
I guess I'm lazy!
Actually I'd be really happy to have a 'stored procedure' I could
hold in my app layer, and execute as a single object (something that
didn't have any permanent presence on the server). I guess I'm
describing Embedded SQL!
But be great if I could supply it as sproc text (hence programming
language neutral) rather than as pre-compiler commands. "Dynamic
Embedded SQL for .NET", ;)))
John
<peter_jacobi@g...> wrote:
> I remember a well-paid, high positioned analyst atclient
> a not insignificant company, who praised the RDBMS part
> of the framework whose development he supervised, to
> - not let any client have access to any table
> - all work done through stored procedures
>
> The idea, besides some ominous 'security', is loose coupling of
> code and table structure.I'm all in favour of abstraction layers - I just don't think they
should be in the database! Although of course it is very attractive
to put multiple sql statements in a sproc and save all that object
manipulation in your client / app layer code.
I guess I'm lazy!
Actually I'd be really happy to have a 'stored procedure' I could
hold in my app layer, and execute as a single object (something that
didn't have any permanent presence on the server). I guess I'm
describing Embedded SQL!
But be great if I could supply it as sproc text (hence programming
language neutral) rather than as pre-compiler commands. "Dynamic
Embedded SQL for .NET", ;)))
John