On 4/16/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Isaac's SQL abstraction layer would probably help in > > instances like this as well. No need to convert all > > those "TOP"s to "LIMiT"s ;-) (I'm guessing, as I > > haven't checked it out yet, but it does sound like > > a "good idea"). > > Well it's definitely a trade. :) The abstraction layer is always going > to be less efficient than hand-coded ad-hoc SQL. I prefer it because > it gives me a level of flexibility (both platform and syntax reuse) > that wouldn't be available to me with ad-hoc SQL, but that doesn't > necessarily mean it's going to be the right tool for every project.
Ok, trade it is. :-) Mostly I was thinking how funny it is that SQL is an acronym that includes in it's meaning sorta "standard", yet there are a bunch of different flavors. It kind of tickles me. > I'm not real certain how it wandered into a discussion of naming > conventions. :) The Force. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:237976 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
