tracker issue : CF-3711078

select a category, or use search below
(searches all categories and all time range)
Title:

Add Functionality Similar to queryExecute for Stored Procedures

| View in Tracker

Status/Resolution/Reason: Closed/Deferred/EnhancementRequired

Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Mary Jo Sminkey / Mary Jo Sminkey (Mary Jo Sminkey)

Created: 02/20/2014

Components: Language

Versions: 11.0

Failure Type: Enhancement Request

Found In Build/Fixed In Build: PublicBeta /

Priority/Frequency: Trivial / Unknown

Locale/System: English / Platforms All

Vote Count: 1

The new queryExecute is a great enhancement to the language for elegant and streamlined code. However, many of us work in situations where stored procedures are used primarily, if not exclusively. So would be nice to have a similar function available to make stored proc calls simple function calls as well, at least when there is only a single return value or recordset.

----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------

Watson Bug ID:	3711078

External Customer Info:
External Company:  
External Customer Name: MaryJo
External Customer Email:  
External Test Config: My Hardware and Environment details: MSSQL

Attachments:

Comments:

Definitely agree with this one. Please let us know what you're planning to do before you commit to doing it though. This should work, should it not: result = executeProcedure(params, options); Where result is either a recordset or an array of recordsets. OUT params can still be referenced via the params struct, and the current "result" attribute reference could still be either in the options or perhaps always return it in the function's result (so then it would be an object containing both this result and the recordset(s). You should also be thinking about how this would be implemented in a non-procedural way as a member function of [something]. -- Adam
Vote by External U.
13428 | February 24, 2014 01:50:20 PM GMT
Did this get reconsidered for Aether?
Comment by Carl V.
13425 | August 09, 2017 09:23:01 PM GMT
I would just say that it's frustrating how Adobe considers things like this which would greatly benefit developers and the readability of the code as "trivial". Is it any wonder we have trouble attracting new developers to the language?? This particularly makes no sense when you want to consider CFML as an enterprise language considering how much more SPs are used in the enterprise than queries.
Comment by Mary J.
13426 | August 09, 2017 10:38:52 PM GMT
Also see this is Closed even though it was not done. TRACKS SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FIXED!!!
Comment by Mary J.
13427 | August 09, 2017 10:41:07 PM GMT