Thanks Cetin.


>Tracy,
>Topics like this end in very long discussions anywhere on the net - actually never end:) In SQLServer 6.5 SPs might have had a very important role. But since 7.0, 2000, and finally 2005 cons look like to take over pros. I don't know if there is a clean/definite/not debatable list somewhere. Every statement of 'pros' have a counteract saying 'but is SP the definite solution'. OK let's keep it short and as just one simple question:
>
>How can you get the structure of table(s)/view(s) to do something in your application layer if you have only SPs provided by a DBA? Documentation only? Wouldn't that be bad enough requiring a lot of conversation with 2 separate teams.
>I love DBAs who give me access outside of SPs. Then I'm not bothered on the number of perfect SPs she/he creates and might use as I see fit.
>
>Cetin
>
>>Please don't stop on account of silly remarks. The goal is a constructive discussion on the pros and cons of sps, correct? That way all can learn.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>perhaps an anti stored procedure person could supply a list of the cons as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL... I'm sure we'll here an earful (pageful?) from Walter or John shortly...
>>>
>>>Why? Too pity you just stopped me on my tracks showing if it was a wrong thing to do to defend counter ideas. Ok you can go on believing SPs have no cons whatsoever.
>>>Cetin