> But since 7.0, 2000, and finally 2005 cons look like to take over pros.
>
>Cetin,
>
>Can you elaborate on this? Reason I ask - SQL 2000 (and even more so with SQL 2005) introduce new language operators, statemetns, etc....that developers can use to make stored procs even more powerful.
>
>I am not saying that people who don't use stored procs are doing a bad thing - many shops use other approaches, and that works just fine for them. But generally, more people are using stored procedures than not.
>
>(And to be fair, some who use stored procs aren't using them optimally, which leads to some of the criticisms of supposedly inflexibility. That's part of why I made my blog post last night about a mechanism to handle both explicit NULL values and optional parameters, to show that it is possible for procs to have a level of flexibility).
>
>Kevin

Oh there I explicitly wanted to point SPs performance boost was not an issue now and even SPs might be slower in that manner.
Yes the bottomline neither SPs should be strictly advocated nor prohibited. There is no single best approach.
Cetin