Since it's a psuedo-Friday in the US, and we're chatting about stored procedures and DBA/Dev range wars, I thought I'd whip out this "oldie but goodie".
eBay does not use stored procedures * http://iancooper.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!844BD2811F9ABE9C!337.entry -Ted. On Nov 21, 2007 1:25 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This also depends on how you're accessing the DB: if > you're using Hibernate, iBatis, etc. then there's a > convenient layer of abstraction such that the mapping > from Java method => stored proc need only occur in the > mapping file(s) and leave code out of it. > > Given my underlying mistrust of DB developers I've > almost always had, or created, a layer between what > they do and what I do, to the point of having maps of > interface impls that actually do the DB calls > (pre-Hibernate days). > > d. > > > --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Given the refactoring tools in IDEs today, I'd > > probably go with > > keeping the names in synch as opposed to keeping > > some other form of > > documentation in synch; since, if the classes are > > not named then same, > > then you might have to otherwise document which > > class calls which > > stored procedure. > > > > One counter argument might be that "Csm5RRP" doesn't > > seem like a > > meaningful name. If it has no meaning in the > > business domain, then the > > stored procedure might be considered an > > implementation detail, better > > hidden behind a facade. In that case, we might want > > to give the parser > > a meaningful name, like QuarterlySalesReport, and > > let it encapsulate > > which stored procedure happens to be involved. > > > > (Unless of course, the stored procedures were > > renamed to better > > describe their function.) > > > > -Ted. > > > > On Nov 21, 2007 9:35 AM, Zhang, Larry (L.) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I knew my question may not be very related to this > > list, but let me just > > > ask anyway: > > > > > > I have many DB2 stored procedures, for each > > procedure I correspondingly > > > have a Java parser to parser the result set. I > > currently name these > > > classes the same name as stored procedure. > > Example, Csm5RRP (this is the > > > stored procedure name), then my Java class name is > > Csm5RRPParser.java. > > > > > > Then 2 days ago, they have to change the names for > > all the stored > > > procedure, to makes things meaningful, I have to > > rename all my java > > > classes. -- this is really a pain. > > > > > > Do you guys have an argument on this? Is this a > > good naming practice? If > > > not, what will be the naming convention in this > > situation? > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- HTH, Ted <http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
