<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www2.sqlblog.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Merrill Aldrich : dynamic sql</title><link>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/dynamic+sql/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: dynamic sql</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>Trick Question – Part Två</title><link>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/2009/10/24/trick-question-part-tv.aspx</link><pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:58:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:18208</guid><dc:creator>merrillaldrich</dc:creator><slash:comments>4</slash:comments><comments>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/comments/18208.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/commentrss.aspx?PostID=18208</wfw:commentRss><description>This post is part two of an effort to examine, in brief, the decisions entailed in designing the interface between database and application. We’re in a strange place at this moment, where both the possibilities and the liabilities of techniques like ORM...(&lt;a href="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/2009/10/24/trick-question-part-tv.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www2.sqlblog.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=18208" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/stored+procedures/default.aspx">stored procedures</category><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/injection/default.aspx">injection</category><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/dynamic+sql/default.aspx">dynamic sql</category><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/ORM/default.aspx">ORM</category></item><item><title>Worst possible SQL Server object name?</title><link>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/2009/10/19/worst-possible-sql-server-object-name.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:44:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:17966</guid><dc:creator>merrillaldrich</dc:creator><slash:comments>15</slash:comments><comments>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/comments/17966.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/commentrss.aspx?PostID=17966</wfw:commentRss><description>I currently test any dynamic sql I have to write against objects called Patt [Y.] O'Furniture It seems to catch the most obvious problems composing SQL on the fly, aside from name length. (Pity the person grappling with a 128 character object name!) What's...(&lt;a href="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/2009/10/19/worst-possible-sql-server-object-name.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www2.sqlblog.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=17966" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/naming/default.aspx">naming</category><category domain="http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/merrill_aldrich/archive/tags/dynamic+sql/default.aspx">dynamic sql</category></item></channel></rss>