On Jan 5, 10:35 am, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:50:41 -0800 (PST), Chris Kavanagh
> > While my comment regarding MVC has been shot down by others, I'll > still stand by the comment regarding relational database theory: the > first three Codd Normal Forms and related concepts. These are > independent of the actual database engine used in the end. Knowing what > to put into a relation (in formal theory, what folks commonly call a > "table" is the "relation" -- not the links from one table to another)... > Django's models are just a means to define those independent of engine > specific notation. > > SQL, originally (when it was IBM's Sequel), was a pure query > language sort of combining bits of relational algebra and relational > calculus. It was supposed to be usable even with hierarchical or network > database systems (though the backend code generator had to be fairly > complex, compared to simple flat-file systems which many relational > engines work as -- MySQL, dBase, Foxpro all use individual files for > each relation [table]). > > Knowing SQL in general can give some insights into what Django is > doing behind the scenes for the 1<>many and many<>many linkages. > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN > wlfr...@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ After reading the posts concerning whether it's an MVC or MTV here's what the book says: "Django follows the MVC pattern closely enough that it CAN be called an MVC framework." I just thought I'd post that to be fair. . .Thanks Dennis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
