> <Jamey dons Database Guy hat>
>
> Well, I view it as analogous to doing a join in SQL.

[snip]

Yep, there's our disconnect. My "real job" requires me to use SQL,
but even then I do as little as possible.

> That's kind of how I view a #select in KirbyBase that has a one-to-many
> link in it.  I actually like it bettern than a JOIN in SQL because the
> data is still normalized, but I don't look at it as something that you
> could modify and then turn around and update the database with.

I just want to store and retrieve objects. If I retrieve an object, I
should be able to change it and store it back. Think YAML.

In fact, the reason I don't use YAML is because of its lack of "high
level" access (select and such), not because of its core model
necessarily.

In the past, I have made much use of DBM to store YAML'd strings. This
is not so bad.

But DBM suffers from a few deficiencies I've listed elsewhere.
KirbyBase
is much cooler.

> >
> I definitely see your point.  Again, I was basing the one-to-many link
> similarly to how SQL works.  In SQL, you would not do it the way you
> just said.  You would actually do an INSERT on the parent table, then 5
> INSERTS on the child table.
>
> Let me think about what you are saying.  Maybe for the future...

SQL is  a standard, but to me it's old technology. It was trendy and
cool in the 60s, but then so was the beehive hairdo.

> >
> Well, based on your previous comments about my proposed implementation
> of one-to-many links, I kind of figured you wouldn't be using them
> anytime soon!  :-)

Haha! Well, there is a magic line that I am always looking for. It's
the
line which, when it is crossed, I start having to look things up
instead
of remembering them. So far, nearly all of KB is below that line (like
nearly all of Ruby).

Just one thing: The one-to-one relationship, is it round-trip or not??

> >I still wish others would express opinions. Is anybody else even
> >reading
> >this thread? If not, we could have this discussion in private. I have a
> >
> >feeling there might be two or three people on this list as smart as
> >both of us put together.
> >
> >
> I know.  I can't believe others on this list don't find this discussion
> as exciting as I do!  :-)

Maybe they have cable TV or something. :-D


Cheers,
Hal