On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:23 PM, DenesL <denes1...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> *snip*
>>
>
>
>> tables MUST be in the same db, let alone server, e.g. you can not do:
>> dbX.define_table('dog',SQLField('name'),SQLField('owner',dbY.person))
>> but this restriction can be worked on independently of views;
>> this also seems to suggest a need for a dictionary of DBs.
>
>
> Absolutely not - You are simply mistaken.
>
Sorry - I think I might have misread you....
As I look at your comment, I see you mean that DAL cannot do across DB's
(correct? is that what you meant?)..
Well, that's the whole point of setting up a view - the VIEW generation from
DAL must be able to create a view, to let the db server handle that, and
present as one "table" (er, view)..
Then the DAL view should work "like a table" where the fact that the
"real" columns might be from different db's becomes masked.
Actually, I think this is perhaps the most compelling reason to implement
views in DAL so that you can extend legacy databases (into your own, new DB)
so that they work "AS IF" they were in one table.
Perhaps the reason you raised the point you did is that "current DAL doesn't
allow this sort of thing" - right, which was the whole point of asking
Massimo how hard he thought it would be to do this...
I would not do it / allow it generally in DAL, but rather contain it to
views only, so that ... well it can be contained / constrained, and ...
well, let's see how possible this would be - it could be incredibly useful.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py Web Framework" group.
To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
