[ATTENTION] Chat with Frank about 3.1 cool news :-)

[Bart Pietercil]

Hi List, Ruslan

I would like to emphasize that although having binary links is great  
for us they will only be viable if there are implemented ways to  
switch the db schema to the other database models.

Although for our solution binary links would have been great, for the  
moment I have "ruled" against them because our db model MUST be able  
to deploy against databases that do NOT have these features.

Before changing my mind I need to have methods available in Valentina  
that permit me to say:

ConvertFromBinaryLinkToTable(T1,name_of_binaryLink) which produces a  
many_to_many table(T1,recid,fk1,fk2) based on the passed binary link

On the other hand I wouldn't mind a method that does the reverse
ConvertFromTableToBinaryLink(T1,FKField1,FKField2) produces a  
binarylink based on the information in the 2 passed fields.

Just my  cents

Bart



On 25-jun-07, at 08:20, Kim Kohen wrote:

>
> On 25/06/2007, at 3:23 PM, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>
>> We will not remove them from engine !!!
>> Just in docs we will say:
>>     Prefer to use Binary Links for all case-sensitive  1:1, 1:M, M:M
>>     and explain why
>> This is okay? :-)
> ••••
> No problem...phew!
>
>> I.e. Deprecate them on IDEA level only.
>> You self should prefer to use BinaryLinks because they win by all
>> parameters.
> ••••
> I don't mind looking at Binary links for new projects but I'm a  
> long way along with the current ones and I really don't want to  
> have to change them.
>
> cheers
>
> kim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Valentina mailing list
> Valentina at lists.macserve.net
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina