SQLServerCentral / Discuss Content Posted by Jonanthan Stokes / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / DTS Standards / Latest Posts

RE: DTS Standards

Carlos Urbina — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:35:00 GMT

Thank you for your suggestions, Jonathan. In the long run, standards and conventions are not for the brilliant innovator, but for the stalwart person who can keep an enterprise going. For the innovator, I would remind them that genius has ALWAYS been about the 90% perspiration. In other words, we must take the time to help others understand what we do, no matter what the circumstances, because in the end it will be cost effective to the enterprise to which we owe our living.

RE: DTS Standards

philcart — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:59:00 GMT

Like the naming convention, just hate it when you look at the package and can't see the full name because of those annoying dots.

I avoid using text annotations and worrying too much about the package layout. Both of these are not part of the package object model so if you modify the package programmatically and save it you lose them.

Also, is the Execute Proces task just used to make a copy of the Excel file? The line "...import the source spreadsheet before we DTS it in..." sort of implies that we're importing the file twice.

RE: DTS Standards

Alex-217289 — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:36:00 GMT

I agree that the naming convention should certainly be used to clearly identify sources and destinations as well as transform steps. As for using descriptive text at the top of your DTS packages, perhaps consider hiring a DBA capable of making a couple of clicks to find out info instead. It'll keep your packages cleaner and many of the objects in DTS are self-describing anyway. With a good naming convention, you should be all set.By the way, the Green Lantern rocks!

RE: DTS Standards

Jonathan Stokes — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:52:00 GMT

I agree with you. However, there are a lot of Organisation's out there who will still be using 2000 2 or more years from now.At least that is the impression that I have got from talking to colleagues and friends. For some it's the money, for others the amount of work involved and for the cautious, the risk. Being in a datawarehouse environment currently moving to an etl tool scenario, there's not much to be immediately gained from moving to 2005.

RE: DTS Standards

Edward W. Stanley — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:30:00 GMT

I think thats great. But with the waning support for DTS as I found in the release of 2005 (which bothers me, btw), I wonder how we can migrate those over to 2005 with little effort. I have in some of my deployments dozens of complex DTS packages.

And maybe its job rentention but I"d rather be movign on to making newer better faster projects then maintenance.

Cheers.

DTS Standards

Jonathan Stokes — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:08:00 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cherring/dtsstandards.asp