>>>>Yes. By the way, there is not precompilation of SPs.
>>>>
>
>>
>>We met at one of the conferences. It's been a long time!
>
>Yes, I remember. Feltman's say hello as well.
>
>>
>>I would say yes. Remote views must be considered "Dynamic" to the DBAs. The do required us to sp_executeSQL. Very interesting perspective!
>
>It is interesting because I have been reading more and more on the SQL side about how cool "dynamic queries" are - and it always seemed they means sql requests generated by the business layer.
>
>Using dynamic view parameters in VFE I find I can create some pretty potent remote view s and sql eats them well.
>
>I am interested in combining the power of SQL views for stuff like calculated totals that can be maintained as the underlaying tables are changed in order to reduce the amount of stuff that has to come over in a query, but remote views do seems more flexible that approaches that were pushed pretty hard a number of years ago saying Fox/SQLServer apps should completely relie on SPs.

Lots of people still push that idea. As I understand it, SQL Server 6.5 stored execution plans with Stored Procedures and not dynamic queries. I assume that they studied 6.5 in some institutional setting and like most such people I've met, are unwilling/unable to think for themselves and rely on vague memories of outdated training.

Since 7 all queries have their plans cached so there is little reason to go the SP-only route anymore.

I'm at a loss to think of an example where a view would be better than a dynamic query.

The whole industry has done an about-face which I find strange. PCs started as a reaction against the lab-coated mainframers, now the DBAs seem to be placing themselves in the mainframer mindset. A combination of centralized and decentralized processing should beat a strictly centralized approach. Ever wait for a subway (mainframe) and opt for a taxi (PC) instead?

Having both is the best way to move everyone and everything around a city.