On 8/11/07, Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking more about this, and I don't think there's more than > one advantage there,
Think some more. > > fields can be added, > > No more or less than with a table, surely. Worse, if I'm trying to take > fields *away* from tables, that'll break the views defined on them, which > doesn't happen without the view. You might claim that this only happens > in a badly designed data scenario, though I would have to point out that > situations evolve and require redesign. I don't maintain views by hand, I use a set of programs to generate and re-generate them for me. So, if I drop a field from a table, I can regenerate the views to cope with it. > > data normalized > > ??? Isn't this what data design is for? And if you mean that tables can > be joined and made to appear as one table, I'd say *that's* what I'm > complaining about. When I do anything other than view data the > *appearance* falls apart leaving more to do than in the first place. Is > that appearance particularly helpful? I may have lost track of the conversation here, but when I have used updateable views, it was fairly easily to designate the one (and only) table that would be updated from the view, while flagging the other (non-updateable) fields (lookup values, totals, etc.). > Though it p'raps doesn't sound like it, I'm trying to rant > constructively. Well, I've been hanging around. > I see the separation is potentially useful, I'm just > starting to get the feeling that the table is in fact naked though it > thinks it's clothed. I'll have a deeper look at the CursorAdaptors since > I'm (now) using VFP9. The fact that I'm using CodeBook is probably a bad > and good thing. After the initial unpicking, it'll be easier to > implement any change system-wide. Codebook was written a long time ago. Some of the thoughts of the ways to do things have evolved since then. Although it is possible to develop a perfectly decent application in CodeBook. The trick is to use the tools the way they were meant to be used. > Anywhere I can find Andy Kramek's stuff? Andy runs TightlineComputers of Ohio with his bride Marcia. A Google ought to turn that up and a little browsing around the site ought to turn up sample code. It did the last time I looked. > You, Michael, & Steve have all talked about implementing something better > via SQL, the VFP views are really SQL, so it looks like it's "just" a > not-very-good implementation issue? It's a "learn to use the tools and their limitations." > D'you think something clever here will extend the Fox's life? 8-) I hope not. The more work I do outside the Fox world, the more dated I see some of FoxPro's designs. As a former collegue of mine used to say, "Clever is a four-letter word." -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
