Open KenRoytman opened 13 years ago
Hi, I'm using utPLSQL for a while. Perhaps you may ask this question to Steve Feuerstein. If this was so important to do that, he should have already done, shoudn't he ? IMHO, I think this could be a good practice to write a utplsql_types package that centralize all types, but this is much refactoring job in all others packages, and this will complicate code reading. Perhaps the name of this "utplsql_types" packages could be shorter like "types" ?
This morning, I blew out the msg_in argument for the utassert.eq() module.
There's no easy place for me to see the length restriction for msg_in without sifting through the guts of the source code.
Is it a good idea to create a utplsql_types package and centralize all types specific to the project in the package?