Subject | Re: [IBO] Prepare - Params question |
---|---|
Author | Helen Borrie |
Post date | 2003-07-17T06:24:55Z |
At 05:20 AM 17/07/2003 +0000, you wrote:
intended them for.
checking that data are what I suppose them to be. IBO has been working
around this params ordering bug for years, so maybe only someone as
paranoid as I would lose sleep by not verifying stuff. :-))
I use ParamByName and FieldByName for everything that I don't need to loop
through. I'll always test a Params[] or Fields[] loop with for the
FieldName as part of my debugging strategy. I don't see the slight extra
overhead as a problem for client-side stuff, since I don't ever process
multiple rows on the client...
Helen
> > I say "probably" because I'd be nervousChecking that the params[] values actually go to the parameters that you
> > if most of your params are of the same datatype and you haven't
>been
> > validating things at the API.
> >
> > Helen
>
>Um, I don't quite follow this last bit.
>What specifically do you mean by "haven't been validating things at
>the API"?
intended them for.
>Helen, I get nervous when you say you'd be nervous!!Oh, sorry, a bad choice of words. It just means I'm paranoid about
checking that data are what I suppose them to be. IBO has been working
around this params ordering bug for years, so maybe only someone as
paranoid as I would lose sleep by not verifying stuff. :-))
I use ParamByName and FieldByName for everything that I don't need to loop
through. I'll always test a Params[] or Fields[] loop with for the
FieldName as part of my debugging strategy. I don't see the slight extra
overhead as a problem for client-side stuff, since I don't ever process
multiple rows on the client...
Helen