Skip to main content

Never open up access to code protected by ACCESSIBLE BY?

In my Oracle Magazine article, When Packages Need to Lose Weight, I step through the process of breaking up a large package body into "sub" packages whose access is restricted through use of the new-to- Oracle Database 12c ACCESSIBLE BY feature.

The idea, to sum it all up, is that once I move code from my original too-large-to-manage package body to another package, the header moves to the spec of that package. This means that formerly-private functionality is now accessible to anyone with execute authority on that package.

For that reason, I stated:
The body of em_central shrinks to a fraction of its former self, because the body of each procedure is simply a redirect into the em_central_a and em_central_b packages. The subprograms in these packages should be invoked only by em_central.
A reader contacted me with this question:
For me this means that newly written subprograms should not invoke the new packages em_central_a and em_central_b directly. So the ACCESSIBLE BY clause could be applied to these packages as well.  For a colleague of mine, this is carrying things too far. He thinks you see no problem if newly written code accesses the packages em_central_a and em_central_b directly. If you agree to the opinion of my colleague, the cited excerpt from the article should be revised. 
Revise what I wrote? Accept that I was wrong? What is Arne thinking?

He is thinking that I am arational human being. And I deeply appreciate that. In fact, I have no (minimal, anyway) problem admitting I am wrong and fixing what I have written. I do that a lot. :-)

But I think in this case I will fight the good fight and provide a more thorough explanation.

First, Arne, regarding use of ACCESSIBLE BY with "these packages as well." I think that you must be referring to the packages containing the new subprograms that want to use em_central_a or _b? If so, yes, you can certainly expand the list of program units in ACCESSIBLE BY, which brings me to my main point:

The default position you should take regarding previously private code that was made "public" solely to help re-org your chubby packages is:

Don't let anyone/any other program access that code.

Which is what I am saying in that quote. Why? Well, because it wasn't designed for use anywhere else. It wasn't tested for use outside of the current execution path. I do think it is extremely important that the original intention of the original developer be respected until you find a good reason to change it.

Otherwise you are asking for trouble - unless that code is so transparent, so well-written and comes with an automated unit testing script that it can understood and used in a variety of ways with confidence.

Please think about this: how many packages have you written or seen from others for which this is true?

Which brings me to my final point:

Everything changes, and code reuse is critical to overall maintainability of code.

By which I mean: when you first break up the package and create pseudo-private packages for the previously private code, you should tightly restrict usage. But suppose a developer comes along, sees those inaccessible subprograms, investigates and decides: "Wow, I could really use that functionality!"

Am I suggesting you tell them to get lost? No, of course not! At that point, you:

  • do some analysis, verify that there really is a good fit;
  • sort out what would need to change in the existing restricted subprogram to be used elsewhere;
  • ensure that these changes would not affect the original use 
  • make the changes and test them
  • add the new package "user" to the ACCESSIBLE BY clause
So, sure, "no problem" - expand access to that now-possibly-usable code, but do with it intention and careful decision-making. 

Should I revise my article? After all, it's not so "black and white", is it? Well....I don't think I need to do that. After all, I don't say:

NEVER EVER USE THAT CODE ELSEWHERE OR YOU ARE AN IDIOT. [I do NOT say this!]

I say: "The subprograms in these packages should be invoked only by em_central."


 For any and every programming feature you ever encounter, there will always be nuances. I'd rather use my articles to make developers aware of what is possible with new features, and the major motivations behind these features.

 Good, clever, practical programmers will discover exceptions, interesting new ways to apply a feature, all the time. It's what we do. And my statement includes an implicit admission of that reality.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Running out of PGA memory with MULTISET ops? Watch out for DISTINCT!

A PL/SQL team inside Oracle made excellent use of nested tables and MULTISET operators in SQL, blending data in tables with procedurally-generated datasets (nested tables).  All was going well when they hit the dreaded: ORA-04030: out of process memory when trying to allocate 2032 bytes  They asked for my help.  The error occurred on this SELECT: SELECT  *    FROM header_tab trx    WHERE (generated_ntab1 SUBMULTISET OF trx.column_ntab)       AND ((trx.column_ntab MULTISET             EXCEPT DISTINCT generated_ntab2) IS EMPTY) The problem is clearly related to the use of those nested tables. Now, there was clearly sufficient PGA for the nested tables themselves. So the problem was in executing the MULTISET-related functionality. We talked for a bit about dropping the use of nested tables and instead doing everything in SQL, to avoid the PGA error. That would, however require lots of work, revamping algorithms, ensuring correctness, you know the score. Then my eyes snagge
4 comments
Read more

How to Pick the Limit for BULK COLLECT

This question rolled into my In Box today: In the case of using the LIMIT clause of BULK COLLECT, how do we decide what value to use for the limit? First I give the quick answer, then I provide support for that answer Quick Answer Start with 100. That's the default (and only) setting for cursor FOR loop optimizations. It offers a sweet spot of improved performance over row-by-row and not-too-much PGA memory consumption. Test to see if that's fast enough (likely will be for many cases). If not, try higher values until you reach the performance level you need - and you are not consuming too much PGA memory.  Don't hard-code the limit value: make it a parameter to your subprogram or a constant in a package specification. Don't put anything in the collection you don't need. [from Giulio Dottorini] Remember: each session that runs this code will use that amount of memory. Background When you use BULK COLLECT, you retrieve more than row with each fetch,
4 comments
Read more

Quick Guide to User-Defined Types in Oracle PL/SQL

A Twitter follower recently asked for more information on user-defined types in the PL/SQL language, and I figured the best way to answer is to offer up this blog post. PL/SQL is a strongly-typed language . Before you can work with a variable or constant, it must be declared with a type (yes, PL/SQL also supports lots of implicit conversions from one type to another, but still, everything must be declared with a type). PL/SQL offers a wide array of pre-defined data types , both in the language natively (such as VARCHAR2, PLS_INTEGER, BOOLEAN, etc.) and in a variety of supplied packages (e.g., the NUMBER_TABLE collection type in the DBMS_SQL package). Data types in PL/SQL can be scalars, such as strings and numbers, or composite (consisting of one or more scalars), such as record types, collection types and object types. You can't really declare your own "user-defined" scalars, though you can define subtypes  from those scalars, which can be very helpful from the p
24 comments
Read more