Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!selfless.tophat.at!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: SQL Puzzle - too many dimensions Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 18:56:00 +0200 Lines: 18 Message-ID: <93aetfFh48U2@mid.individual.net> References: <3Boxp.9547$HF3.5013@newsfe03.iad> <92r02mF24dU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net jiYfKOJk41QL3LZTIHni6gSh/+YGAuClqBpZfxRDKB0jdo8XY= Cancel-Lock: sha1:bV1SGMW0U82uGAToG7ko9d466P8= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110515-0, 15.05.2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4128 On 15.05.2011 18:09, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Fact is that relations > in SQL are pretty good imitations of FCOs. To your specific allegation, > that SQL does not treat base and derived relvars as FCOs, given the > manipulation that one _can_ do in SQL with tables and views, I'm > wondering what it is that you think is so important? We all do and I have serious doubts that Lawrence will show the beef. So far it's just unsubstantiated opinion IMHO. Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/