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

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 25/6/07 11:30 AM, "Bart Pietercil" <bart.pietercil at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bart,

> 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.

So, ready for 3.1
 
As API and SQL commands
     COPY LINKS  ...

> 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.

Clear.

And this is why ObjectPtr links will live in Valentina forever:

    they are VERY SIMILAR to Foreign Key of Relational model.
    so developers more easy adopt to ObjectPtr as first step


> Before changing my mind

:-)))))))

Just we have discuss here with Ivan ObjectPtr vs BinaryLink,
And I told:

    people need CHANGE MIND to strat use BinaryLinks.


> 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

You will have them in 3.1 build,

And little later we plan implement this refactoring steps as wizards in
Valentina Studio.  
 
> 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.

Again see HOW we have implement this here:

http://www.valentina-db.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=paradigma:public:en:documen
tation:vkernel:vlink:vlink

Section REFACTORING


-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]