# Lack of support of Stored Procedures is a Show Stopper **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [January 9, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993 "2006-01-09T23:45:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/intrader)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993/1 "2006-01-09T23:45:12Z")
In my opinion most mature/complex client/server or n-tier applications using SQL Server, Oracle, or MySQL, use stored procedures. Without support (except by use of the execute method) for Stored Procedures, Ruby on Rails or MonoRail is a Show Stopper. We are unable to effectively use Ruby On Rails as all access to the db is using Stored Procedures. This does not mean that we are unable to use ORM. In fact, if we were to be able to consider a Store Procedure results set as a View, we can easily analyze the view (or DataSet) returned as a first step in creating/updating the objects and their classes. As to ActiveRecord, and ActiveRecord is not a proper representation of a Busines Object. I think the patten is simplistic and although useful, it is not sufficient. In my opinion we should have Busines Object Collections and Business Objects. To create a Business Object Collection we sould need to interate through the ActiveRecords. I’d appreciate any comments, pleas to removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Thanks ---
**Author:** ![intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/intrader)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993/2 "2006-01-10T01:23:34Z")
intrader wrote: > In my opinion most mature/complex client/server or n-tier applications > using SQL Server, Oracle, or MySQL, use stored procedures. > That’s one way to skin the cat, certainly. In my opinion most complex > n-tier applications should be broken into tiny pieces (with great > prejudice, ideally) that don’t need them. Then again, my opinion > doesn’t count for much. I’m not a bank. Neither are most of Rails’ > users. > Without support (except by use of the execute method) for Stored > Procedures, Ruby on Rails or MonoRail is a Show Stopper. We are unable > to effectively use Ruby On Rails as all access to the db is using Stored > Procedures. > Then I guess you’re not going to be using Rails 🙂 Truth be told, I > can’t see it being that hard to write an AR equivalent to (as you point > out) use a returned dataset as the basis for an access object. > As to ActiveRecord, and ActiveRecord is not a proper representation of a > Busines Object. I think the patten is simplistic and although useful, it > is not sufficient. > What do you think is missing? > In my opinion we should have Busines Object > Collections and Business Objects. To create a Business Object Collection > we sould need to interate through the ActiveRecords. > Not sure I follow here. What would you be able to do with a business > object collection that you couldn’t do with a class method in AR? > What’s missing? And what’s stopping you from implementing an > ActiveRecordCollection that does it, then showing us why it’s better? – Alex ---
**Author:** ![intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/intrader)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993/3 "2006-01-10T01:33:16Z")
Alex Y. wrote: > intrader wrote: > > > In my opinion most mature/complex client/server or n-tier applications > > using SQL Server, Oracle, or MySQL, use stored procedures. > > That’s one way to skin the cat, certainly. In my opinion most complex > > n-tier applications should be broken into tiny pieces (with great > > prejudice, ideally) that don’t need them. Then again, my opinion > > doesn’t count for much. I’m not a bank. Neither are most of Rails’ > > users. Yes, many ways to skin the cat - in our case, application programmers are restricted from directly accessing the db. Everything is thru Stored Procedures. > > Without support (except by use of the execute method) for Stored > > Procedures, Ruby on Rails or MonoRail is a Show Stopper. We are unable > > to effectively use Ruby On Rails as all access to the db is using Stored > > Procedures. > > Then I guess you’re not going to be using Rails 🙂 Truth be told, I > > can’t see it being that hard to write an AR equivalent to (as you point > > out) use a returned dataset as the basis for an access object. I am impressed with Rails clean MVC vs. the somwhat muddled .NET way. > > As to ActiveRecord, and ActiveRecord is not a proper representation of a > > Busines Object. I think the patten is simplistic and although useful, it > > is not sufficient. > > What do you think is missing? > > > In my opinion we should have Busines Object > > Collections and Business Objects. To create a Business Object Collection > > we sould need to interate through the ActiveRecords. > > Not sure I follow here. What would you be able to do with a business > > object collection that you couldn’t do with a class method in AR? > > What’s missing? And what’s stopping you from implementing an > > ActiveRecordCollection that does it, then showing us why it’s better? I sm missing something, as I am not a Rails programmer (yet). What I see is that your model classes inherit from ActiveRecord. And yes I don’t see any problems in implementing an ActiveRecordCollection. I just don’t know Rails. > – > Alex ---
**Author:** ![intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/intrader)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993/4 "2006-01-10T16:13:41Z")
On 1/9/06, Alex Y. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > And yes I don’t > > Rails mailing list > > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) I encourage you to investigate overriding the basic CRUD operations within AR to utilize direct SQL calls in their stead. You will run into an organizational issue in that introducing SP’s into the call stack introduces an additional indirection in naming the operations. What I mean is… SQL is standard… .there is only one way to say “SELECT FROM”. OTOH, your SP could be named ANYTHING (“sp\_something\_get”, “sp\_something\_read”, “whatever\_you\_like\_to\_call\_it”). And in my experience, you are very lucky if you have a DB Admin team that has absolutely used the same naming convention across the several hundred procedures in your database. Rails can do this. You _can_ alter the system to perform this trick. I would be very interested in your results. Good Luck. – ---
**Author:** ![intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@intrader](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/intrader)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lack-of-support-of-stored-procedures-is-a-show-stopper/51993/5 "2006-01-10T02:14:46Z")
intrader wrote: > I sm missing something, as I am not a Rails programmer (yet). What I see > is that your model classes inherit from ActiveRecord. > It’s important to realise that inheriting from ActiveRecord isn’t > actually required. It’s just the most common case. Besides which, Ruby > supports a flexible enough notion of multiple inheritance to allow an > enormously capable business object model to be built around the > structure you’re given. > And yes I don’t > see any problems in implementing an ActiveRecordCollection. I just > don’t know Rails. > I’m still unclear as to what such an object might actually _do_… What > would its methods be? What would it sound like when it quacked? I can > dream up a couple of possible ideas, but I don’t know if it’s what > you’re thinking of.