Ken

>>PMFJI - but to add to your point JVP - and directed to John Ryan -

Tag team, is it? < g >

>>1 - I believe not enough has been made of the DBC factor. Having to use a DBC in a client-server situation is an uneccesary PITA at best.It is high on my list why I stay away from views. Think about what your are saying - "I must have a client side database so I can access my server database" - kind of silly in my opinion.<<

The dbc *is* an issue. It can be a problem. But it is soluble. By itself and despite the extreme descriptions, that is not a reason to go off into "only SP will do" territory.

>>2 - Also - you get a LOT better control with the SPs - and I KNOW a lot better performance on complex multi-table join selects statements<<

Well, that's not what the SQL7 docs say. Apart from KNOWing, do you have anything more?

>>3 - I am a stubborn "always right until proven wrong" kind of guy, but I am open to changing my mind with no bruised ego when I am wrong. Only a few years ago I was a "RV Evangilist" - after a couple of projects - I RAPIDLY saw the value of SPT cursors, Stored Procs, and rolling my own data management objects. JVP is 100% right when talking about flexibility and the ultimate cost - especially in this day of distibuted computing, multiple front ends, and the web.<<

I'm sure everybody sees the value of SP, SPT and data classes. But does that mean that RVs should be consigned to the dustbin? I don't think so. If you do, that's fine.

As for cost: My firm or I have done *heaps* of RV and SP work. To the repeated assertions of loss of "flexibility" and extra cost for RVs, I'd say: rubbish.

Regards

JR