|
|
Posted by --CELKO-- on 10/31/06 19:47
> > grep() functions such as Oracle and DB2 have.
>> Not available, so you advocate a vendor grep function? <<
No, I advocate the Standard SIMILAR TO operator in SQL-92. I will use
a vendor function in practice until they catch up, then change the code
as part of perfective maintenance. I have always made a distinction
among Standard SQL, portable SQL and proprietary SQL.
>> Judging by your response here and other stuff I've seen you write about CLR you've not a clue, you are giving comment on something you know nothing about - very dangerous game to play and cowboyish at best. <<
The rest of the trade press also seems to be reporting that I am not
alone in finding problems with CLR.
>> My definition of a cowboy is somebody who frigs a job, somebody who says it will take 2 days when in reality it should take an hour, <<
My definition of a cowboy is somebody takes an hour to do what should
take two days. These days, he say he is "agile" or "extreme"
programming
>> somebody who over complicates things so they get asked back because they are the only person who understand whats been developed <<
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- attributed to Albert Einstein
And what better to get that kind of "job secure programming" than
proprietary code?
>> The use of CLR in this context will allow you to code a function that uses the regex library, that same function can be used in SQL Server and in applications - its a common re-useable component across the entire application; no more frigging string manipulation in SQL. <<
And the database side of the house has to maintain both SQL and the
dozen or so CLR languages from which these functions will come. How is
your Haskell? It is a great language for grep() and it is declarative
like SQL! I happen to like Algol 60 and Pascal, so why not put them
into the schema?
>> I'm talking about validating the correct syntax of the URL not that it exists, you can never know that because the existance of the URL is outside the scope of the transaction, you have no consistency control over the third party DNS server nor domain registration entity. <<
I think I said that ..
>> a URL may not have an MX record so emailing means nothing - the URL may still be valid in terms of its existance even if you can't send email to it. <<
Then it is a bit useless for e-commerce, isn't it? Apparently, not
having a Mail Exchanger ius not a problem for all the sites that are
using it as their custrmer id.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|