September 16, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Visibility
September 16, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Start your day with some learning 🙂
September 16, 2013 at 11:56 pm
Nice one. Will probably never use it though 😀
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP
September 17, 2013 at 3:54 am
Koen Verbeeck (9/16/2013)
Nice one. Will probably never use it though 😀
+1
September 17, 2013 at 3:56 am
Interesting that you cannot change the visibility once you have objects referencing to it.
I understand that if visibility is ON and there are already non-CLR object referencing an assembly. Then you should not be able to switch it to off.
But being invisible first: Why is it then blocked to make it visible?
Nice question to see what I do NOT know :ermm:
________________________________________________________
If you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
September 17, 2013 at 4:58 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
September 17, 2013 at 5:34 am
I just got to learn something new. I prefer to stay within native SQL where possible, but it's still good to learn new things. Thank you.
September 17, 2013 at 6:30 am
Koen Verbeeck (9/16/2013)
Nice one. Will probably never use it though 😀
Oh, you might just get caught up with it quite by accident. It used to be true, and may still be true, that if the assembly was explicitly loaded by create assembly in SQL it would be visible( until changed), but if it was loaded implicitly because another assembly needed it it wouldl be marked invisible, so you wouldn't be able to call it directly until you changed it, and you wouldn't be able to change it until the other assembly goes away; so it was possible for an assembly to be invisible without you intending it to happen, and that could be a nuisance. But last time I looked at CLR was years ago, so some of that may have changed since. And I might be misremembering, as I never actually used this stuff, just read about it to see whether it was anything that might justify the cost of upgrading ourselves (and our customers) to SQL Server 2005.
Tom
September 17, 2013 at 6:54 am
Good one, thanks!
September 17, 2013 at 7:47 am
Ed Wagner (9/17/2013)
I just got to learn something new. I prefer to stay within native SQL where possible, but it's still good to learn new things. Thank you.
+ 1
September 17, 2013 at 8:21 am
Very New one, thank you for the post, Steve.
I never knew, never used and not sure if I am ever going to use... but weird part is I got it right... after reading and staring at the options ... i thought (like all times.. in a class module when the procedure/function when created as "private" it is not visible in the instance of the class) this might me and picked the 3rd one. 😎
Where is this option can be seen? it can be sql scripted or is this needs permission in general?
ww; Raghu
--
The first and the hardest SQL statement I have wrote- "select * from customers" - and I was happy and felt smart.
September 17, 2013 at 8:40 am
Raghavendra Mudugal (9/17/2013)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.Note: (as of now) only.. 1 and 4 applies (i am on my way...)
Shouldn't that be "only.. 1 and 100 applies" ?
😀
Tom
September 17, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Nice one - thanks, Steve!
September 17, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Picked the one that makes the most sense.
September 26, 2013 at 3:23 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (9/17/2013)
Koen Verbeeck (9/16/2013)
Nice one. Will probably never use it though 😀Oh, you might just get caught up with it quite by accident. It used to be true, and may still be true, that if the assembly was explicitly loaded by create assembly in SQL it would be visible( until changed), but if it was loaded implicitly because another assembly needed it it wouldl be marked invisible, so you wouldn't be able to call it directly until you changed it, and you wouldn't be able to change it until the other assembly goes away; so it was possible for an assembly to be invisible without you intending it to happen, and that could be a nuisance. But last time I looked at CLR was years ago, so some of that may have changed since. And I might be misremembering, as I never actually used this stuff, just read about it to see whether it was anything that might justify the cost of upgrading ourselves (and our customers) to SQL Server 2005.
+1
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply