This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. The main reason would be if someone went back and cleaned up the UDFs (unless they are only used once, then your "execution plan" idea is shot) the software fails. And, if you don't clean up, you end up with a lot of clutter not used, especially after a lengthy period of time At further reading, it sounds like the UDFs are somehow stored as metadata, which sounds a bit better, but I am not sure you are saving that much once you consider all the extra clutter creating multiple UDFs creates.Is performance an issue?
This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. The main reason would be if someone went back and cleaned up the UDFs (unless they are only used once, then your "execution plan" idea is shot) the software fails. And, if you don't clean up, you end up with a lot of clutter not used, especially after a lengthy period of time.At further reading, it sounds like the UDFs are somehow stored as metadata, which sounds a bit better, but I am not sure you are saving that much once you consider all the extra clutter creating multiple UDFs creates.
Is performance an issue?
No performance is not really the issue. I just had a long discussion with the developer about his decision to use UDFs and it ends up that is kind of a crutch requested by the report writers. I can't say I understand the reasoning 100%, but you know how requirements gathering goes.
We sometimes suggest solutions that stick and then can't be unstuck after realizing it wasn't the best way. Just another reason to try and keep "how" out of requirements as much as possible. – Mark H Aug 17 at 1:19.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.