[Gambas-user] Suggestion SQL object

[kobolds]

Jean-Yves F. Barbier-2 wrote:
> 
> kobolds a écrit :
>> I wish to propose SQL object . 
>> 
>> in the project tree to add a new folder call SQL where it contain sql
>> object
>> . 
>> the sql object basically is just use to store sql code (like a local
>> stored
>> procedure) but you can edit with 2 option . one using sqlquery the second
>> edit the sql code (text directly)
>> 
>> these sql object can be call directly from the code .
>> 
>> the purpose of sql object is so that 
>> - easy and cleaner  to maintain .  if you want to change the sql code ,
>> you
>> don't need to hunt in your program source code
> 
> ? A really good program doesn't contains much of SQL code, and if so, you
> just have
> to put it in only one class and that's all
> 
>> - sqlquery tools make easy to create sql code
> 
> manual SQL coding as *always* been far superior to whatever tools you can
> use;
> one of the reasons is no DB absolutely follow the SQLxxxx standards, each
> have
> its idomatics AND, sometimes, these "specialties" are mandatory against a
> complex
> application
> 
>> - some database that you do not wish or unable to have stored proc in it 
> 
> 1st case is a terrible nonsense, 2nd: don't use such a dump
> 
>> - provide independent test your sql code without running the program
> 
> DB independant code is a popular DB rookies' myth: everybody producted
> such a driver/piece of 
> code/addon/... however, if you dive into real good codes, you _never_ find
> such things: they all
> use specifics.
> Of course, some programmers still think mysql is a real good DB and they
> don't need stored
> procs nor referential integrity; they also prefer to spend 4 days to
> develop some application 
> remote poor code that could have been made in 4 hours as a stored proc;
> which is 200% more sure.
> 
> It is this kind of morons that yell to every ear that SQL is dead and "we
> must and will find 
> a way to get rid of it" - still they're all wrong 'cos if such a solution
> was "so easily" 
> reacheable, it should be today's standard.
> 
> And testing SQL code from files is only possible if you issue small and
> immutable queries;
> if you involve 5 (or 15 or 45 or much more) tables, with a part of the
> proc that determine 
> which tables will be further queried, you're out because your code is
> complex and no query
> appears as a unique and complete string
> 
> 
> -- 
> Auribus teneo lupum.
> 	[I hold a wolf by the ears.]
> 	[Boy, it *sounds* good.  But what does it *mean*?]
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
> on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Gambas-user mailing list
> Gambas-user at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
> 
> 

>? A really good program doesn't contains much of SQL code, and if so, you
just have
to put it in only one class and that's all

the most funny things I ever heard . in my 9 years of programming
experiences, I had been mostly involved in database programs . some of it so
complex that endup over 80+ stored proc . sorry that I not sure about those
programs that don't required much sql

>manual SQL coding as *always* been far superior to whatever tools you can
use;
one of the reasons is no DB absolutely follow the SQLxxxx standards, each
have
its idomatics AND, sometimes, these "specialties" are mandatory against a
complex
application 

yes manual coding is the best but why write when you have a tools to do it .
I usually use the sql query tools . unless the tools can't do the things I
want , I modify the code manually . this save you a lot of typing and error
in case typo .

>1st case is a terrible nonsense, 2nd: don't use such a dump 
I really don't understand this part . it 's not uncommon when your program
don't have privilege to create stored procedure or in certain case you want
to hide the code .

>DB independant code is a popular DB rookies' myth: everybody producted such
a driver/piece of
code/addon/... however, if you dive into real good codes, you _never_ find
such things: they all
use specifics.  
I don't understand this also . what so strange to be able to test your sql
code without running your program . I know a lot programming tools provide
such option . 

sorry to ask this. are we living in same era ? 








-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-SQL-object-tp24889521p24890016.html
Sent from the gambas-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.