[Gambas-user] Suggestion SQL object

[kobolds]

Jean-Yves F. Barbier-2 wrote:
> 
> Doriano Blengino a écrit :
>> Jean-Yves F. Barbier ha scritto:
>>>> complex that endup over 80+ stored proc . sorry that I not sure about
>>>> those
>>>> programs that don't required much sql
>>>>     
>>> Actually we don't play on the same ground: most of the projects I was
>>> involved
>>> in used 400-4,000 stored procedures.
>>>   
>> Dear Jean-Yves,
>> 
>> do you mind to tell us what was your role in those gigantic frameworks? 
>> Were they a Panamerican Airlines booking system? And even so, I find 
> 
> Chief of project (one of many) - Freight booking division.
> Not PanAm: Air-France.
> 
> If the network is really gigantic (leased lines, phone lines, cables,
> satellites, ethernet...), 
> frameworks aren't (the data quantity is); you can easily have a more
> complex system 
> with a complete data management system (ie: Adempiere is far more
> complex.)
> 
>> your language extreme and offensive, as you knew everything. Nobody 
>> knows everything, so you may not know of other's needs. The methods one 
>> uses for big and complex programs are not well suited for little and 
>> simpler programs. But those simple programs are important too.
> 
> I felt the same from what he said and I don't pretend to know everything
> on anything
> (but I also don't pretend to know nothing either:), I'm mad because he
> speaks about 
> things he obviously don't master or confond with other things I don't know
> about.
> May be it is because I had the luck to work with and knew talentuous
> developpers in both 
> programming and DBs and learn a lot from them.
> 
> I also don't take a rise at "small" programs (huges are often made of
> smalls), I'm
> talking about basic rules you can't drift from without going toward many
> disagrements:
> it is not because you're buiding a small application that you will do it
> bad, no?!
> 
>> I could agree with some of your statements, but please be more gentle. 
>> Sometimes one sees stupid ideas, and only after a while he realizes that 
>> those ideas were not so stupid.
> 
> Yeah I know, but unfortunately I don't think we're into this particular
> case.
> 
> Sorry if you felt it offensive, it should have remained in MP, not public.
> 
> -- 
> Quid me anxius sum?
> [ What? Me, worry? ]
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 


can you people come back to main discussion about Query Object . 

let me give  example of the benefit of query object
you create a query object call Qcustomer . in your program you can reuse to
call it using exec(Qcustomer, param1, param2)  . 

- when you need to modify the sql , all you need is to open Qcustomer and
modify the sql code in it .
- when error happen , you can execute / run the Qcustomer alone with out
running your program . this make easy in debuging . also you can know for
sure the result return from the query.

of course all this you can manual do your self but why make life difficult .

so tell me what so stupid in this idea? 







-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-SQL-object-tp24889521p24891971.html
Sent from the gambas-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.