By chance did you recently migrate and are using different credentials?
Possibly just a database permissions issue.
Byron Mann
Lead Engineer & Architect
HostMySite.com
On Jul 19, 2013 5:47 PM, "vernon broussard" wrote:
>
> In ColdFusion 10 when trying to access one of our gateway applications n
> In ColdFusion 10 when trying to access one of our gateway applications now I
> get an error saying that Executing stored
> procedures is not allowed. How do you enable stored procedures in this
> version? Is it part of the install or can it be changed
> within administrator?
CF 10 does not
By table1 and table2 I actually meant database1 and database2.
Im on a roll today...
> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Gray [mailto:cg...@careyweb.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:36 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: RE: stored procedures
>
>
> Never
gt; Subject: RE: stored procedures
>
>
> When you say you "modified" the stored proc and "executed it" do you
> mean you executed an ALTER statement on the proc?
>
> If you re-open the proc and the new parameter shows up, then I'm sure it
> is saved.
>
When you say you "modified" the stored proc and "executed it" do you
mean you executed an ALTER statement on the proc?
If you re-open the proc and the new parameter shows up, then I'm sure it
is saved.
Did you add the new parameter to the end of the list of params? Since
dbvarname is largely ign
Rick,
Um... This is not going to help. You will probably need to post the error
you are receiving and also the SP code. There's nothin inherently wrong with
the code below at first glance.
-mark
Mark A. Kruger, CFG, MCSE
(402) 408-3733 ext 105
www.cfwebtools.com
www.coldfusionmuse.com
www.necf
thanks greg, yes my hair is now growing back as we speak :)
and unfortunately for our company i am the DBA :) In fact me and my business
partner are the DBA's, programmers, designers, marketers, salesman etc.. but
thanks to all you guys on this site we are are getting better at other things,
o
Richard,
Glad to be of help. I hope that now you will have a great weekend, happy
holidays, etc. (and that your hair will grow back :-)
And more than that, I hope that with Scorpio the MySQL drivers bundled with
CF will be upgraded. (Anyone from the CF team at Adobe lurking here on this
list ?
hi greg, you are a diamond :) I changed the driver over to the connector j 5.0
and added a new datasource not with mysql connection but with 'other' and set
the configuration manually. I tried it and couldnt believe that it is now
working. It does make alot of sense now that we know what it is.
Richard,
Although ColdFusion ships with MySQL database drivers, my sense is that
these bundled drivers may not support Stored Procs. (Just guessing.)
When I go into the ColdFusion Administrator, on the "Data Sources" page, the
"Driver" dropdown for "Add New Data Source" has for MySQL "MySQL (3.x
hi greg, just noticed that you said you were using a
mysql-connector-java-3.1.12.
i dont know if it makes any difference but i am using dreamweaver and have
setup a mysql connection through it. Queries work fine but not the stored
procedures. Do you think it may have something to do with the dr
hi greg thanks for your reply. I thought that may be it for a minute but yes it
is ticked - all of the allowed sql statements are ticked
Thanks
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-t
Richard,
Just to confirm background stuff ...
Is the following enabled:
In ColdFusion Administrator --> Data Sources --> {select data source in
question} --> Advanced Settings --> Allowed SQL --> Stored Procedures
I am running stored procs with no problem with MySQL 5.0.19 with ColdFusion
7.0.2
Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: Stored procedures
here's how ya get at a fucntion that is part of a package:
HTH
Cheers
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP & Director of E
If it is pure functions you are talking about, I am sure this will work:
Select some_oracle_user_defined_function(arg) from dual
-Original Message-
From: Shawn McKee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Stored procedures
I have used lots
, Shawn McKee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Integers, strings, etc. A single value for a given function.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:33 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Stored procedur
Yes they are part of an Oracle package.
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: Stored procedures
Are the functions part of an Oracle package? If so I can send ya the code
to
use &#x
here's how ya get at a fucntion that is part of a package:
HTH
Cheers
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
phone: 250.480.0642
fax: 250.480.1264
cell: 250.920.8830
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.electricedgesystems.com
Integers, strings, etc. A single value for a given function.
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored procedures
What do the functions return?
On 4/25/06, Shawn McKee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are the functions part of an Oracle package? If so I can send ya the code to
use 'emjust a normal CFQUERYno use of CFSTOREDPROC
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
phone: 250.480.0642
fax: 250.480.1264
cell: 250.920.8830
e-mail
I don't believe you can access functions directly from ColdFusion.
You'd have to write a stored proc that calls the function, I think.
On 4/25/06, Shawn McKee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have used lots of Oracle stored procedures using but my DBA
> has now written several functions that I nee
What do the functions return?
On 4/25/06, Shawn McKee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have used lots of Oracle stored procedures using but my
> DBA
> has now written several functions that I need to use. I have never had
> any
> luck accessing these via and was wondering if it was a) not
> pos
> From: Mike | NZSolutions Ltd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is there any advantage having this type of query in a SP over
> calling a simple CFC ??
Mike,
Stored Procedures were a good choice for me when I was working at a place
that had two, top-notch DBAs who could really analyze some of the mo
: Martin Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 March 2006 10:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures and when to use them
An example. I had a set of queries to delete an organisation from one table
and then all the relative data in the database for that organisation. I
wrote it
An example. I had a set of queries to delete an organisation from one table
and then all the relative data in the database for that organisation. I wrote
it originally in CF but it was taking about 2 minutes, and timing out, to
procees. After putting the whole lot into a stored proc the execu
One of the nice things about stored procedures wv. inline sql is that
your database can tell you which procs are invalidated by a change to
your schema, which can be a big time saver in development.
/t
~|
Message: http://www.hous
ike this.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John C. Bland II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 02 March 2006 10:15
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Stored Procedures and when to use them
>
> Sprocs are faster if you are doing multiple things in 1 call
be
your vice as CF will choke on large sets like this.
-Original Message-
From: John C. Bland II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 March 2006 10:15
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures and when to use them
Sprocs are faster if you are doing multiple things in 1 call. The idea
Sprocs are faster if you are doing multiple things in 1 call. The idea is
you are in the database already so go ahead and let the database do what it
does best. For general selects, inserts, updates, and deletes keeping it in
the app is fine.
It does come down to personal preference though. I used
No benefit really. Not in this instance.
-Original Message-
From: Mike | NZSolutions Ltd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 March 2006 21:39
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Stored Procedures and when to use them
Hi guys,
I am just getting my head around stored procedures in SQL Server. One of
th
>Hi guys,
>
>I am just getting my head around stored procedures in SQL Server. One of
>the things I am trying to understand is when I should be using them.
I can't stand them myself. Used them in an application just for
*hits'n'giggles, then needed to go back and make a few changes later. It was
to add to this question (and secretly bump it to the top of the list), how does
the newID() function work in this case?
mike
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:233827
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.c
> Dayum, dude...
> And I thought *I* was long-winded... cl!
> Someone who goes thru keyboards faster than I do! hehe
Heh. I dunno... I've had this little jobber here for several years. I
like it ... I actually got it at a little independant computer shop
around the corner from the place
> I use structures to pass back multiple things from
> functions, but I'm not so
> sure you're right about not using an array. An array maps
> to the
> cfprocresult's resultset attribute(as it could equally to
> it's name attrib)
> but with the array you don't need to know the name used
> only the
Dayum, dude...
And I thought *I* was long-winded... cl!
Someone who goes thru keyboards faster than I do! hehe
I just happened to be skimming the code example and saw the isDefined
thing. I saw it, and questioned it. Glad you weren't put out.
I'm all for annoying people, except people y
> Isaac, you've given me an answer for something I'd given
> up on, I wrap my
> SPs in functions some of the time, but because I don't
> want to call the SP
> twice on one page I've always assigned to a local variable
> and then accessed
> the resultset via that variable. For example:
>
>
>
> But, I do see you're using NOT isDefined("variables.var").
> I've been using NOT structKeyExists(variables,"varName")
> (which I didn't know about until Sean yelled at me for
> using the other method... ;)) and I can say that it
> dramatically improves clarity, performance, and
> readability.
her Jared!
>
> Wow, how embarrassed must you be right now?!
>
> :OD
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 March 2005 03:43
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
>
> Well Ade, th
I'm planning to respond to this thread, but it's going to have to wait
until at least when I get back from the office this evening. I just
got busy last night with some new framework features to encapsulate
and/or search keywords for reuse in queries and since it's all
downloaded here at the apartm
No, not you, the other Jared!
Wow, how embarrassed must you be right now?!
:OD
-Original Message-
From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 04 March 2005 03:43
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
Well Ade, thankee...
"Preachy&quo
Well Ade, thankee...
"Preachy" doesn't float with me, it elicits an instant "bye-bye, talk
to the hand" reaction. So I try to avoid it, though sometimes I fear I
fail anyway.
Thanks for the kudo.
(And glad to oblige, that's what community's all about!)
Laterz,
J
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 01:36:02 -0
simple value.
I do like the getProperty() idea.
Anyway, it's 01:30 and my bed looks very inviting. Sorry if my ramblings
seem to contradict each other that's probably because they do! And d'you
know what I like about Isaac's and Jared's posts? They don't in any way
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:51:45 -, Adrian Lynch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how using structures over arrays improves encapulation. Granted
> standardising the naming of the resultsets will help but how can it be
> better in having to know the names of two variables inside another
> fu
Isaac,
A quick comment on your CFC snippet...
First of all, thanks for using real code instead of psuedo-code. I
know sometimes the shorthand is nice for the writer, but it's hell on
the reader. I do it myself, although lately I've been more inclined to
jump into HomeSite+ and write it up and the
> I think for readability returning the values in a
> structure is going
> to do a.k.a S.Isaac
>
> ...
> ...
> But the idea of going through a function to get the
> different
> recordsets, and referencing via the array would mean that
> there is no
> need to know the name of the queries? defentl
lways slips me by.
Ade
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 March 2005 20:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:54:45 -, Adrian Lynch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use structures to pass back multip
t; syntax not hide better what loadData() does?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Campeau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 03 March 2005 17:04
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
>
> > The cfstoredproc tag will return both queries regardless,
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:54:45 -, Adrian Lynch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use structures to pass back multiple things from functions, but I'm not so
> sure you're right about not using an array. An array maps to the
> cfprocresult's resultset attribute(as it could equally to it's name attrib)
h 2005 17:04
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
> The cfstoredproc tag will return both queries regardless, you could
> construct the function to return one of the callers choosing, but from a
> simplistic approach returning both in either an array or a structure seems
&g
> The cfstoredproc tag will return both queries regardless, you could
> construct the function to return one of the callers choosing, but from a
> simplistic approach returning both in either an array or a structure seems
> more useful. The point I was making was that you either reference them as:
:24
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures in a CFC
I would do it differently (then returning a struct/array with both
recordset). Please give comments/suggestions/whatevers as I'm just
thinking out loud.
In essence, your SP returns two recordsets which don't hold the same
data,
I would
be happy to try it out!
Also the SP would probably not get called again and again internally for as
long as the Query/Query plan is cached on SQL Server.
-Original Message-
From: Marc Campeau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 March 2005 15:24
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored
I would do it differently (then returning a struct/array with both
recordset). Please give comments/suggestions/whatevers as I'm just
thinking out loud.
In essence, your SP returns two recordsets which don't hold the same
data, they could be related but they are not the same. Why not create
two me
ed only the number of
the resultset.
I hope that makes sense, I've just had a not so powerful power nap and I
tell ya, it hasn't done anything for my thinking just this minute.
Ade
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 March 2005 13:50
To: CF-
> Good question, I believe you will have to enter the two
> resultset objects
> into a single CF complex object (such as a Structure) and
> return that as a
> single value.
That would be my choice. I think a structure makes more sense for that
as this code:
...
...
Is much more legible (and sel
Good question, I believe you will have to enter the two resultset objects
into a single CF complex object (such as a Structure) and return that as a
single value.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Jarrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 March 2005 09:01
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Stored Proced
Janet Schmitt wrote:
> In Oracle, stored procedures are compiled when you create them (i.e. run
> the CREATE PROCEDURE/FUNCTION/PACKAGE/TRIGGER statement). The first time
> you call an Oracle Stored Procedure it is loaded into Oracle's memory
> (shared pool of the SGA). The stored procedure
As far as I know this was only the case with versions before SQL Server
2000, not with 2000, but the DBA here is gonna do some testing with it.
I am curious if this is still the case.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-45
nal Message -
>>From: Micha Schopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:53:28 +0200
>>Subject: RE: stored procedures
>>To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Stored procedures are NOT pre-compiled. This is a common made mistake.
>>Only
> Input and output parameters, have no effect on the
> execution plan
Actually, they often have a *huge* impact on how a query execution plan is
compiled. My earlier post on this explains it a little.
Respectfully,
Adam Phillip Churvis
Member of Team Macromedia
Advanced Intensive Training:
* C
Okay... "without going out of your way to provide a means of creating
sql injection attacks". :P Seven years doing this work, I've only ever
heard of one person actually using SQL Server's full-text indexes (and
that was someone I wasn't working with)... doesn't mean that people
aren't, but my expe
ble is in bookstores now!
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: stored procedures
> "That is where the benefit of SP's are, that once run all
"And then there's also the fact that
stored procedures are immune to SQL injection attacks."
One sidenote, it is possible to use SQL Injection attacks on SQL Server
while still using stored procedures. For example using Full Text
Indexing commands, it is fairly simple to provide a SQL injection
8:44 AM
Subject: RE: stored procedures
"That is where the benefit of SP's are, that once run all future runs are
significantly faster."
I think that this isn't always true. It depends what statements are within
the SP. It's possible that an SP could produce var
Within SQL Server the execution plan is only re-generated on request
when the stored procedure contains statements which dynamically change
the stored procedure. Input and output parameters, have no effect on the
execution plan, they are pre-cached also even if they are not used.
I have increased a
o elaborate?
Ade
-Original Message-
From: Bill Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 August 2004 13:53
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: stored procedures
True, but coming up with the execution plan is what takes the longest and
has the greatest impact on the server. So by having a SP once i
> hey this might sound lame to some of you that use stored
> procedures and i apologize, but what is the point or what
> is the benefit rather?
> from what i have read so far i havent seen a point, but
> maybe i just dont understand the concept completely. whats
> hard about saying ... if 1
> qu
http://www.euservices.com
__
-Original Message-
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: stored procedures
Stored procedures are NOT pre-compiled. This is a common made mistake.
Onl
s.com
--
- Original Message -
From: Micha Schopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:53:28 +0200
Subject: RE: stored procedures
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stored procedures are NOT pre-compiled. This is a common made mistake.
Only the execution plan gets cached, but the
Stored procedures are NOT pre-compiled. This is a common made mistake.
Only the execution plan gets cached, but the stored procedure is
compiled upon execution.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoor
Stored procedures are not meant to replace simple queries that have negligible affect on the server - queries that return a small amount of rows, or queries on tables with few indices. However, when your application becomes heavily data-dependant and complex then moving those queries to the databa
> I'm not sure there is much point in using a stored proc
> to build a SQL string and execute it, you'll get no
> speed/efficiency benefit at all, in fact it will probably
> be slower.
This is true, but if you use stored procedures exclusively for all database
access, you may be able to tighten
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: [cftalk] RE: Stored Procedures
try,
SET @query = @query + ' AND Message LIKE ' + "'%" + @searchtext +
"%'"
basically you are missing the quote around the like
-Original Message
ROTECTED]
Sent: 20 February 2004 10:57
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: [cftalk] RE: Stored Procedures
I have simplified this to:
But get error [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]Line
1: Incorrect syntax near 'a'.
Any more help please?
Allan
--
4 10:57
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: [cftalk] RE: Stored Procedures
I have simplified this to:
But get error [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]Line 1:
Incorrect syntax near 'a'.
Any more help please?
Allan
--
CREATE PROC GetMessage
You are missing sinle quotes after the like I think. Use what you did
first.
> -Original Message-
> From: Allan Cliff - CFUG Spain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2004 11:57
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: [cftalk] RE: Stored Procedures
>
> I ha
rom: Mike Townend
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 11:43 AM
Subject: [cftalk] RE: Stored Procedures
try adding a size to the varchar
CREATE PROC GetMessages
@fromid int,
@toid int,
@searchtext varchar(100)
should work
HTH
-Original Message-
From: Allan Cli
try adding a size to the varchar
CREATE PROC GetMessages
@fromid int,
@toid int,
@searchtext varchar(100)
should work
HTH
-Original Message-
From: Allan Cliff - CFUG Spain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Stored Procedures
I am
Thanks Craig
I missed using the resultset.
I went to school in Surrey many years back.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Stored Procedures problem
Try this..
--
CREATE
Try this..
--
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.Q_CheckItem
@Items_id int
AS
SELECT card FROM Items WHERE Items_id = @Items_id
--
#card.card#
--
-Original Message-
From: Jack Ince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 March 2003 14:36
There are some on my server:
http://exciteworks.com/ec/sql.cfm
Josh Trefethen
http://exciteworks.com
Quoting James Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone point in the direction of some tutorials on Creating Stored
> Procedures and Triggers in SQL Server?
>
> TIA
>
> *
> > I don't see why this would make any difference at all,
> > since the closing CFTRANSACTION tag marks the end of
> > the transaction,
>
> Yes, we agree. Apparently this is not enough, though.
> According to our IBM contact we need additional housekeeping
> beyond what happens with CFTRANSA
> We are using CF 5.0 to call stored procedures in mainframe
> DB2.
>
> ...
>
> This works fine except that under load we get abends on the
> stored procedure unless we turn off the 'stay resident'
> parameter in DB2 that keeps the stored procedure code
> resident in memory. Of course this af
>(without pdf conversion all show up correctly)
wouldn't this indicate that the problem is NOT in the stored proc??
+---+
Bryan Love
Macromedia Certified Professional
Internet Application Developer
Database Analyst
Telecommunication Systems
[EMAI
> I'm converting a whack load of common queries to stored
> procedures right now and I have started getting an error
> whining about trying to open a datasource that is already
> open.
>
> The situation is that in some of my cftransaction blocks
> I have a mix of included queries and included
I agree with this in most cases. However it is not currently possible to cache
oracle stored procs in cf (except by assigning the results to session or
application variables). Also on most simple selects I found that the time for
processing was faster using embedded cf queries that calling a store
MS-SQL Stored procedures are stored with their 'compiled' execution plan. If
you issue a query from an application, SQL Server has to determine the
execution plan before running ... determine which indices there are and which
one(s) would be the best to use. So if you use SPs you could gain per
Jon, thanks for your response.
Stephen
> If you are concerned about performance, converting cfquery's to
> stored procedures is the best way to optimize an application. Even
> for selects.
>
> jon
>
> Stephen Hait wrote:
>
> >I've been wondering about using stored
> >procedures in templates i
If you are concerned about performance, converting cfquery's to stored
procedures is the best way to optimize an application. Even for selects.
jon
Stephen Hait wrote:
>I've been wondering about using stored
>procedures in templates instead of
>embedding queries. Is there a good reason
>for
"Inside SQL Server 2000"; Microsoft Press is a great reference with 'beyond
basic' material. You really need to master database skills to be a great
developer, so it's not too far off topic!
Here's a simple SELECT stored procedure; and how it's called in CF. I don't
use the CF stored procedure ta
esday, August 01, 2001 3:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures
On 8/1/01, Bruce, Rodney penned:
>I am using ACCESS, NT and IIS. I am trying to run a set of queries
>as a stored procedure.
> I have created a page of all the queries and have tried to add it to
>the
On 8/1/01, Bruce, Rodney penned:
>I have created a page of all the queries and have tried to add it to
>the CF Administrator Scheduled tasks. But when I try to run it, CF admin
>gives me a long list of possible reasons it can't run the task, all
>dealing with URL. it can't be resolved, needs t
On 8/1/01, Dave Watts penned:
> > Sounds like you may be confusing Stored Procedures, which can't be
>> done in Access (actually, you can save a query in Access and call it
>> using cfstoredproc, but I don't believe you can pass variables to
>> it), with Scheduled Tasks.
>
>You can pass parame
> Sounds like you may be confusing Stored Procedures, which can't be
> done in Access (actually, you can save a query in Access and call it
> using cfstoredproc, but I don't believe you can pass variables to
> it), with Scheduled Tasks.
You can pass parameters to Access parameter queries with
On 8/1/01, Bruce, Rodney penned:
>I am using ACCESS, NT and IIS. I am trying to run a set of queries
>as a stored procedure.
> I have created a page of all the queries and have tried to add it to
>the CF Administrator Scheduled tasks. But when I try to run it, CF admin
>gives me a long
> From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2001 2:06 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Stored Procedures
>
> I'd say you are being ultra causious if your app is managing the SP's
mthat
> it is using. I have never come across a system that will
recreating it because it has been deleted.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2001 16:51
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Stored Procedures
The idea that I am using is that the application becomes self
sufficient. With this I am looking at creating the sp on
50 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Stored Procedures
>
> I'm not sure why you are trying to do what you want to do. By the
looks of
> it what you actually want to do is to creat an SP to insert a new
users
> details into the db. If so you don't do this using CF. You ru
within your db although this is not simple and certainly
challenging if you are only starting out with SP's!
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2001 14:26
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Stored Procedures
Which is what I am looking for, if it d
14 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Stored Procedures
>
> Never tried it, you may have to put semi colons at the end of every
sql
> statement if ODBC terms them as separate SQL stements. I would
suggest that
> you write and call an SP that creates SP's for you.
>
> -Or
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
