On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:08:47AM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
> Michael Neumann <mneumann / ntecs.de> wrote in message news:<20040520102456.GA1592 / miya.intranet.ntecs.de>...
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I released Ruby/DBI 0.0.23. 
> > 
> > Fixed several bugs.
> > See http://ruby-dbi.rubyforge.org/ChangeLog for more changes.
> >  
> >  * DBD::ODBC: Implemented DNS-less connections.
> >  
> >  * DBD:SQLite: #do returns number of rows changed
> >  
> >  * DBD::Oracle: Database#tables returns tables AND views
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hmm....I was just wondering if views should be included as part of the
> tables() method or have there own views() method because, after all,
> views are not tables.  Or is this a standard defined somewhere?  I
> realize that this is how Perl (and others?) do things but I'm not sure
> that it's appropriate.  I'm open to arguments for or against.

I think tables() should return everything that can be queried using a
SELECT statement. This method is quite useful for example for the
sqlsh.rb script (interactive sql shell), but not that useful for most
other applications. I think there should be a more advanced method that
knows more about the type of object table/view/stored procedure.

But I am not sure if there's currently a real need for this. I think
there are still more important tasks to do, but I am open for
discusssion.

Regards,

  Michael