henrik staun poulsen (12/9/2008)
Yes, that is also a solution, as pointed out on Erlands homepage (see above).
But to my management that was a more scary solution, so it was postponed.
The table-value UDF solution performs nicely, and does not require dynamic SQL, and is non-invasive. So it was acceptable to management.
Just a thought...
This might be a great opportunity to convince management to allow some level of testing of a rewrite using the better ideas/suggestions provided not only here but everywhere your story has appeared. While the current solution works you never know when Microsoft may make a change that results in your solution no longer working. And while you always run the risk that anything can change, forcing one to make changes to their system, the chances of being in that kind of predicament is far greater for those with creative work-a-rounds in place then those systems more closely follow what is generally accepted as 'Best Practice'.
No one will meet the "Best Practices" outline %100 because there are too many variables in the Real World to always go by the book but the closer you are to meeting that ideal the less risk you have of being forced to rework your work-a-round down the road.
I mention this only because a former employer of mine found them in this exact situation. Something they had creatively put together was broken a few years later when a major software vendor (not Microsoft) made a significant change to the Requirements for using their software. The result was the company had to spend far more resources redoing the code again then they would have if they had done it right the first time around instead of looking for the work-a-round that they ended up using.
Just some food for thought. I know that like the rest of us you aren't sitting around each day waiting for something to do and so the idea of another major project is not something you'd be jumping to get.
Kindest Regards,Just say No to Facebook!