RE: Alpha Five compared to Access
Hi folks
Tom Cone Jr Are you saying that field rules defined for a table are disregarded if the table is linked to othes in a set?
Steven
My error, then, erase that objection, and leave the others :-)
==========================================================
Tom Cone Jr
dBase files...The Alpha Five implementation is consistent with how its predecessors, from a variety of different publishers, did it.
Steven
And this is one of the reasons that the dbase implementation was considered a little rinky-dink, and often languages only offer it as an auxiliary, like with a special driver, while seeking to use something like btrieve or a proprietary schema as their default.
Tom
I do not agree however that differences in terminology are a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.
Steven
There are three issues ..
1) Data Integrity, which Alpha handles on the field rule
level rather than the Index Level
(with some difficulties, like when a child table
prevented parent table data entry)
2) Ease of implementation
(a "Unique Index" in one place versus having to
place it in each field)
3)Terminology
Using the term "Unique Index" for something that is not,
by normal database methodology, is poor terminology..
I agree that it isnt really fair to imply (1) from (2) or (3), the discussion sorta mixed the three...
Tom Cone Jr wrote: ... differences in terminology are (not) a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.
Schmuel
No, but when the terminology differences could lead to serious confusion, they are a valid topic as well....
Shalom,
Steven
Hi folks
Tom Cone Jr Are you saying that field rules defined for a table are disregarded if the table is linked to othes in a set?
Steven
My error, then, erase that objection, and leave the others :-)
==========================================================
Tom Cone Jr
dBase files...The Alpha Five implementation is consistent with how its predecessors, from a variety of different publishers, did it.
Steven
And this is one of the reasons that the dbase implementation was considered a little rinky-dink, and often languages only offer it as an auxiliary, like with a special driver, while seeking to use something like btrieve or a proprietary schema as their default.
Tom
I do not agree however that differences in terminology are a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.
Steven
There are three issues ..
1) Data Integrity, which Alpha handles on the field rule
level rather than the Index Level
(with some difficulties, like when a child table
prevented parent table data entry)
2) Ease of implementation
(a "Unique Index" in one place versus having to
place it in each field)
3)Terminology
Using the term "Unique Index" for something that is not,
by normal database methodology, is poor terminology..
I agree that it isnt really fair to imply (1) from (2) or (3), the discussion sorta mixed the three...
Tom Cone Jr wrote: ... differences in terminology are (not) a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the integrity of the database engine, or the data which it is managing.
Schmuel
No, but when the terminology differences could lead to serious confusion, they are a valid topic as well....
Shalom,
Steven
Comment