To my mind "virtual" means something different. "Foreign" would be a
more intuitive name.
Samuel R. Neff wrote:
I like the term virtual 'cause that's exactly what they are.. a table that
does not really exist in the db and is provided by some other system. This
is not inconsistent with other DBMS's which use terms like "virtualized
view", both are tables that are not linked to underlying physical data. The
fact that the mechanism which provides these tables is different does not
mean they are not both validly virtual tables.
Sam
-------------------------------------------
We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team building Flex
based products. Position is in the Washington D.C. metro area. If interested
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:33 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] How many virtual table implemenations are there out
there?
I agree.
How about "Synthetic Table" or "Abstract Table"?
--- Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While you're at it, I strongly recommend changing the feature name
from "virtual table" to "federated table", or at least not something
called "virtual", because the older/current name is a source of
confusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
