|
|
Posted by Will Honea on 06/02/05 03:20
As one of the barbarians, I find myself wholly in agreement with you.
As a developer, I found that I never had the specialized knowlege of
(or even access to) the convoluted business rules governing detailed
requirements sufficient to stick my fingers into the works. As a
manager, I found that the QA effort required a separate, dedicated
process apart from the general application oriented flow. Any
modification/extension of the database engine (as seen from an end
user perspective) that will affect ALL operations of the system most
definitely needs to be handled by someone who understands the side
effects and system implications of such implementations.
Of course, I speak as one who can "break an anvil"...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:13:10 UTC "JT" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Generally speaking; for performance, security and maintenance reasons,
> any programming which updates, inserts or deletes from a datbase table
> should be tied as close to the database as possible and managed by the DBA
> or a designated SQL Developer. If someone needs to update transactions in an
> account table, then provide them with an SP, grant them exec only rights,
> and document the parameters.
> Every time a developer asks for direct access to the database, I can't
> help recalling that Capital One commercial where the barbarians come
> crashing through the gates of the castle with axes and swords!
>
> <SAN3141@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1117621720.962502.258120@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > There doesn't seem to be consensus about when to put code in the
> > database or in the middle tier. There was a long discussion about this
> > in an Oracle newsgroup (message ID:
> > ULcQb.466$KU5.37@nwrddc02.gnilink.net).
> >
> > Elsewhere there's been discussion about Microsoft SQL Server 2005
> > adding the CLR to support stored procedures in languages such as C#. A
> > scan of the Web and discussion forums finds differing opinions about
> > this.
> >
> > Two authors have written articles that fall on different sides of the
> > debate.
> >
> > "Keys to the Database"
> > http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500830
> >
> > "SOA, Multi-Tier Architectures and Logic in the Database"
> > http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/LogicInTheDatabase.HTM
> >
> > Joe Celko wrote the first article, but his objections point to
> > Microsoft SQL Server 2005:
> >
> > "I have an article at WWSUG.com on how much I hate the CLR stuff that
> > Microsoft is putting out."
> > http://blog.intelligententerprise.com/archives/002419.html
> >
> > "The bad news is that SQL Server 2005 will you define your own
> > aggregate
> > functions in a CLR language."
> > Message id: 410d9a51.0502190442.bd68cbe@posting.google.com
> >
> > IBM DB2 and Oracle are doing the same thing with the .NET CLR. Is this
> > a non-issue or are all three companies misguided?
> >
>
>
--
Will Honea
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|