On Jul 28, 2004, at 19:31, Lennon Day-Reynolds wrote:

> Well, that's closer, but it still isn't a totally general solution,
> since the table schema has to include an 'IDENTITY' column, right?
> That would mean that individual tables in a SQL Server database being
> used as an Active Record backend could need different unique id logic.
> That's not impossible, of course, it's just way more complexity than
> the current adapters require.

I guess I don't understand the problem... why does this mean that 
individual tables in a SQL Server database could need different unique 
id logic?


Nathaniel
Terralien, Inc.

<:((><