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"
>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-)#
***
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 Pas
>> 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. K
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 wor
> 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 a
> 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
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
Michael Babcock <> wrote:
> [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
[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
> 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 bet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have 100 columns, then you really need to consider normalizing.
One more thing. Make your SPs named according to the namespace of the
code your writing. As your systems get big, and your dealing with 1400
+ SPs, it's the only way to make any sense! I still have
> From: Michael Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm creating a new app that uses brand new SQL Server tables. This app
> is currently VFP for the UI but it'll be going DotNet in the future
> sometime, and I'd like to design for that migration now rather than
> later since this is a new app. I lik
ssage-
From: [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
> Fox
Nick Cipollina wrote:
I'm actually in the process of doing the same thing. We have a legacy
FoxPro application and all of the data is currently in VFP free tables.
I am going to start moving the data to SQL Server. I have chosen the
approach of using SQL stored procs with T-SQL commands to do a
I'm actually in the process of doing the same thing. We have a legacy
FoxPro application and all of the data is currently in VFP free tables.
I am going to start moving the data to SQL Server. I have chosen the
approach of using SQL stored procs with T-SQL commands to do all
querying, updating, e
16 matches
Mail list logo
