Listen guys, I apologize for getting uptight. Maybe you guys do things different here by laying out the whole playing field when you post code, but the snippet I provided is only a snippet and is not intended to define a complete data schema with which a user can test. It is designed to simply show how a procedure in one database can search for an object in another. There is no specific schema to validate or verify or otherwise check as anything that relates to the database being searched comes in the form of parameters. The procedure knows nothing else except that which is passed to it. I do not even know if this works in any recent versions of MS SQL, but I am sure that any developer can take it and run with it to find out the exact syntax that will work for the version they are using.
The procedure can be dressed up however anyone likes, but that is not the point of the snippet. No one needs a tutorial on how to create tables and load data into them. No tutorial on how to validate the incoming parameters or make sure that the database even exists. Anyone can add that however they like. This is designed to check for something and return a message if it does not exist. And I believe that I mentioned that it was a crude example. That would mean that it has a lot of room for improvement. It is not, as I said, a Mona Lisa.
This is designed for a seasoned programmer that does not need the whole landscape included to obfuscate the point being made. It should be a foregone conclusion that if any developer is using this, they are already extremely familiar with the databases they are working with and can interpret the snippet well enough to apply it to their schema. Any schema verification should have already been performed. This is not for a newbie. If a newbie uses it, (s)he will most likely run into issues that have to be troubleshooted, but that too is not the point being made.
The procedure is in no way altering any schema or data on the referring database either. It is a simple check for an object and I purposely did not include a bunch of other material that will confuse the matter. I simply wanted to show exactly the parts that perform exactly the need. That is it. I already said that if anyone has anything that they would like to contribute, they should feel free to post it. Lynn, that means if you think a schema should be provided, you have the right to post that. If someone can use it...great.
The biggest issue I have here is that up to now, neither of you have posted anything but criticism, because you were both offended by sarcasm that was not even directed at you. Read the whole thread again from my first post and consider my sarcasm and look at how you responded. And then to have Lynn tell me that he knows how he would fix it but wanted to see if I knew. Really? Honestly, I gave up that BS in 2nd grade. I am sorry, but read it again. How productive is that.
We have gone back and forth for days about semantics. Has there been any fruit produced from it? None whatsoever. This whole discussion has contributed absolutely nothing to the reader looking for a solution. If this were a work environment we would have been fired for wasting time.
Listen, I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I am not attacking you. I am simply trying to keep it simple. I wish you both the best. If you have anything (schema included) to contribute I will check it out. Other than that, I have spent too much time on this thread already. Life goes on and I prefer to spend my free time with my son who is having a difficult time with his.
Take care.