M$ never adopted [packages], I can't understand why (unless it's a
copyright issue or something)??
--Michael
not copyright - iirc packages are part of the ansi standard - ms said there
was 'no demand'.
Andrew Davies MBCS CITP
- AndyD 8-)#
Andy Davies wrote:
M$ never adopted [packages], I can't understand why (unless it's a
copyright issue or something)??
--Michael
not copyright - iirc packages are part of the ansi standard - ms said there
was 'no demand'.
What's that address again.One Microsoft Way
Some said stored procedures are more secured than allowing direct sql
statements.
I've heard that as well.
But remote views should be the way to go for Visual Foxpro. But using a
remote view meant using persistent connections. And M$ charges SQL
Server (before 2005) users per connection. Kind
On 7/29/06, Man-wai CHANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But remote views should be the way to go for Visual Foxpro. But using a
remote view meant using persistent connections. And M$ charges SQL
Server (before 2005) users per connection. Kind of a joke...
Remote views, cursoradaptors and SQL
For those who integrate VFP with SQL Server...would you set up a SQL
Server view and then have a stored proc that returned the view, or would
you just write the SQL Select code into the stored proc and return
that? I'm unfamiliar with how parameterized views work in SQL
Server...I'm
Anyway when I say NameSpace do you understand that concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
Anyway just preface the sp with an area that it belongs to. If you are
going .NET this is following the flow.
Namespace... it's an old DBF concept. I always create an internal unique
key and
Man-wai CHANG wrote:
For those who integrate VFP with SQL Server...would you set up a SQL
Server view and then have a stored proc that returned the view, or would
you just write the SQL Select code into the stored proc and return
that? I'm unfamiliar with how parameterized views work in
, etc... For what you are doing, I think stored procs
are definitely the way to go.
Thanks,
Nick Cipollina
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Babcock
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [NF] Views
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Babcock
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] Views in SQL Server
Nick Cipollina wrote:
I'm actually in the process of doing the same thing. We have a legacy
FoxPro application and all
From: Michael Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good points...thanks, Steve. There's not many columns, so I'll consider
that. As for naming conventions, you're right. I wish there were
packages in SQL Server like there are in Oracle. The Oracle packages
allow you to organize a bit better,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In 2005 it's much different. I don't have any real Oracle experience to
compare the two in a case like this.
So how is it different? Sounds like you're still having to preface your
SPs by some naming convention to keep your sanity?
--
Thanks,
--Michael
Stephen the Cook wrote:
Well years ago it was proper to preface every SP with usp_. I didn't like
it then, and still run into the same old stuff every so often.
Anyway when I say NameSpace do you understand that concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
Sure...it's the same as
12 matches
Mail list logo
