* Bill Studenmund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | Packages aren't schemas. What they bring to the table is they facilitate | making stored procedures (functions). You can have twelve different | developers working on twenty different packages, with no fear of name | conflicts. The package names will have to be different, so there can be | functions with the same names in different pacakges.
Hmm. But if we had schema support can't we just package those procedures into a schema with a given name ? Maybe my stored procedures needs some other resources as well that should not conflict with other packages, like temp tables or such. It then seems to me that using schemas can solve everything that packages do and more ? | For the most part, I think packages and schemas are orthogonal. I'm taking | a cue from Oracle here. Oracle considers packages to be a schema-specific | object. What is really the difference functionality wise of making a subschema and package ? In both cases you deal with the namespace issues. -- Gunnar Rønning - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
