Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Stored procedures vs Dynamic SQl |
---|---|
Author | Mitchell Peek |
Post date | 2005-07-21T16:56:08Z |
women_lover_best wrote:
know you will have some need for a rather static set of output. By
abstracting the developer from where the data is actually coming from
(through stored procedure and/or views), allows the application to be
built somewhat independent of the changeing database. The database can
change (along with the view or stored procedure) and the application
will contine to work as normal without having to find all the places in
that application that references those data whose structure may have
changed.
Of course, if the application requirement changes (e.g additional
columns of data) then both the application and the DB changes.
Stored Procedures/triggers are not a pain, and not difficult to
maintain. Work with them for a while then try and do without them.
>i feel stored procedures are a pain and difficult to maintainPrecisely the reason a stored procedure can help you. Lets say you
>especially if database design changes a lot..and i dont think getting
>database desin right first time ever happens..
>
>
know you will have some need for a rather static set of output. By
abstracting the developer from where the data is actually coming from
(through stored procedure and/or views), allows the application to be
built somewhat independent of the changeing database. The database can
change (along with the view or stored procedure) and the application
will contine to work as normal without having to find all the places in
that application that references those data whose structure may have
changed.
Of course, if the application requirement changes (e.g additional
columns of data) then both the application and the DB changes.
Stored Procedures/triggers are not a pain, and not difficult to
maintain. Work with them for a while then try and do without them.