Yes - use a code generator. There are code gen tools that you can
the tables / sprocs / views. Here is one:
<Diffident@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>Instead of coding these many lines for each and every parameter, is there
>anyway that I can reduce the lines of code ? How can I design a resusable
>method for setting these properties......so that this method can be called
>for each and every parameter?
>
>"Scott Allen" wrote:
>
>> Property getters and setters are generally short enough to be inlined
>> by the optimizing compiler, so they won't be as expensive as a method
>> call. No need to worry....
>>
>> --
>> Scott
>>
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/ >>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:41:11 -0700, Diffident
>> <Diffident@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hello All,
>> >
>> >Best coding strategies for calling stored procedures from ASP.NET. As you
>> >are all aware that accessing a property is expensive than calling a method.
>> >For example in order to call a stored procedure which accepts 2 input
>> >parameters, we are currently following the below standard to set a single
>> >parameter:
>> >
>> >objOracleParameterSTATUS = new System.Data.OracleClient.OracleParameter ();
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.ParameterName ="STATUS_IN";
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.SourceColumn = "STATUS";
>> >objOracleParameterSTATUS.OracleType=System.Data.OracleClient.OracleType.Number;
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.Size =1;
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.Precision =0;
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.Scale =0;
>> >objOracleParameterSTATUS.Direction = System.Data.ParameterDirection.Input;
>> >objOracleParameterSTATUS.SourceVersion=System.Data.DataRowVersion.Current;
>> > objOracleParameterSTATUS.Value =STATUS;
>> > bjOracleCommand.Parameters.Add (objOracleParameterSTATUS);
>> >
>> >So on the whole we are setting 9 properties for a single parameter and if
>> >this stored procedure accepts 10 parameters, then this process has to be
>> >repeated for those many parameters.
>> >
>> >Can any of the solution developers suggest me an alternative choice for the
>> >above code or how can I make this less expensive and efficient.
>> >
>> >Thanks for your help!!!
>>
>>