|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/01/04 11:23
--CELKO-- (jcelko212@earthlink.net) writes:
> It is already acting up and you need to replace it ASAP. Read a nice
> article at CIO magazine's website entitled "Bound to Fail" about the
> falure of a legacy system that everyone could see and nobody wanted to
> change.
>
> If you are in the United States, where we have 1 lawyer for every 400
> people, you should be suing this vendor.
So the system I work with has ANSI_NULLS off as well. I don't hear of
any customers suing us... As for why we have it, well, this is a system
that started its life in 1992, when SQL Server had nothing else to
offer.
>>> I don't think leaving the above mentioned options off amounts to a
>>> logical inconsistency i.e. 2+2=5.<<
>
> I guess that you are smarter than ANSI, smarter than ISO, smarter than
> any other SQL product staff, etc.
Please take your insults somewhere else. Raziq has an application, and
provided the settings which are appropriate for the system, the
application performs his job, and he is happy with it.
One thing I can tell: he is smarter than you are, because he knows what
he can change with his system and you don't.
> Do you exchange data with other SQL products? Do you move data from one
> table to another within the system itself? Do you plan on doing these
> things later? Do you want to have a Data Warehouse someday?
And how would any of that be affected by the fact that the application
internally uses NULL in the wrong way, or quotes it string literals with
" instead '?
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|