• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Bob update

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    So thats from noddy to corporate and dead-end to corporate.

    I'm sorry but the applications I develop with oracle backends are in oracle because the companies have global licences which allow them to use oracle everywhere and so they use oracle everywhere. There is no way these companies could quit the oracle grindstone so moving is not an issue.

    granted there will be exceptions to every rule but if you are developing to an oracle backend, I would be surprised if that backend will ever change.
    It'll all change when everyone is using cloud. Swap between Oracle Cloud and Amazon Cloud....

    Nah, actually, they still won't
    Best Forum Advisor 2014
    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
      Oracle doesn't have an identity field
      No, but it does have an immutable pseudocolumn that you could use.

      It's not good practice, but it could be done that way if you really have something against using a sequence to generate a primary key.
      Best Forum Advisor 2014
      Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
      Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
        There's a big difference between the architecture of SQL Server and Oracle and T-SQL and PL/SQL.
        Having now googled PL/SQL, I realise the clue is in the name. PL = Procedural Language. By (my) definition, if it's procedural, it's not SQL, hence the confusion.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by IR35 Avoider View Post
          Having now googled PL/SQL, I realise the clue is in the name. PL = Procedural Language. By (my) definition, if it's procedural, it's not SQL, hence the confusion.
          I was always lead to believe that Oracle (ANSI) SQL was the pure form and Microsoft created their own variant. A bit like javascript vs MS Javascript.

          Sounds plausible. The panel think what?
          Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
            I was always lead to believe that Oracle (ANSI) SQL was the pure form and Microsoft created their own variant. A bit like javascript vs MS Javascript.

            Sounds plausible. The panel think what?
            Which would be valid if SQL server was not originally Sybase.
            merely at clientco for the entertainment

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by eek View Post
              Which would be valid if SQL server was not originally Sybase.
              Your point? Is SQL Server SEEKWELL nearer the ANSI standard than Oracle? I fink not.
              Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
                Your point? Is SQL Server SEEKWELL nearer the ANSI standard than Oracle? I fink not.
                That you can't call it MS SEEKWELL .

                As for ANSI standards they are written by the person who shouts loudest, pays most and gives up last.

                All committees are the same. Its usually a matter of ensuring everyone in the room has at least one patent in the final document.
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
                  OK so this is the example where the cursor is being used :

                  The screen in question creates a row in a table called dinner. There is a child table called dinner_item which will hold all of the dinner items.

                  In the meta data we define for each type of dinner, what the default set of dinner items are.

                  So for cooked breakfast we have :

                  Fried tomato
                  Bacon
                  Beans
                  Sausage
                  Mushrooms

                  So when we create a dinner row, we want to automajically populate the dinner items from the meta data. So the cursor would open the list of dinner_items from the meta data, and then pop one row in the dinner_item table.

                  It could be done from the application layer, but this would not only perform better but would be easier to change the stored procedure than rush out a new version of the app.

                  The stored procedure debate trundles on, but we were forced into using stored procs as Oracle doesn't have an identity field, so we need to use sequences so this is all wrapped up in the insert stored proc, and the new id value returned as an output variable.
                  I have considered your problem domain and I can say that I feel the best way to implement your solution would be to use LinqToSql
                  thus preserving n-tier architecture and negating use of thes cursors.

                  I have to be honest with you and say that this problem domain is frankly pretty trivial
                  when compared to some of the solutions I have to pull out of my hat when I am required to do so by my clients. And these soultions I provide these soutions all come without these cursors. Never.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by Hill Station Murthy View Post
                    I have considered your problem domain and I can say that I feel the best way to implement your solution would be to use LinqToSql
                    thus preserving n-tier architecture and negating use of thes cursors.

                    I have to be honest with you and say that this problem domain is frankly pretty trivial
                    when compared to some of the solutions I have to pull out of my hat when I am required to do so by my clients. And these soultions I provide these soutions all come without these cursors. Never.
                    I've considered his problem domain and I can say that I feel he's missing eggs at breakfast. And porridge.

                    Originally posted by suity
                    So for cooked breakfast we have :

                    Fried tomato
                    Bacon
                    Beans
                    Sausage
                    Mushrooms
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                      I've considered his problem domain and I can say that I feel he's missing eggs at breakfast. And porridge.
                      Depends where I'm staying but there is also Fruit Salad, yoghurt and pastries.

                      I would also expect kippers depending on the class of the five star hotel.
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X