Posted by Tony Rogerson on 10/31/06 21:01

As ever you try and direct the post away from what you've been asked; you've
followed the typical celko pattern a) change the subject to avoid the
problem, b) throw in a quote to some scolar to apparently make us aware you
appear to be educated and c) throw out a few dozen more insults.

> 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.

Like I said again - how would you code this NOW in SQL Server; would you use
a ton of LIKE's and CASE's or would you use the tried, trusted and
recommended method for complex logic and use CLR?

You've already told us "NO CLR, Tony".

And as to all the .NET languages; you are completely out of touch with
current environments, even in the enterprise DBA's know VB.NET or C# usually
the former, in practice all stuff is either VB.NET or C#.

> The rest of the trade press also seems to be reporting that I am not
> alone in finding problems with CLR.

Rubbish, I'm not going to get distracted from you posting the standard SQL
equiv that will work in SQL Server NOW.

> 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.
>
You are completely and utterly in the dark on how DNS works - shouldn't a
good professional consultant google for the information, digest and learn
first before trying to give opinion or technical advice? Its what I do; you
don't seem to do that if this is anything to go by.

DNS as A and MX records; SMTP uses the MX record to find the mail server. If
there is no MX record then you can't reach the mail server.

Customer ID? who on earth uses the MX record as a customer ID - they'd be
mad; take mine mail.torver.net is where my emails come in, I don't have
www.torver.net pointing anywhere; I have other backup DNS MX records all
with different sub-domains - jesus you are just such a fraud....

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1162324048.950601.49770@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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.
>

[Back to original message]