Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
From: Ja Lar <ingen_at_mail.her>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:05:38 +0100
Message-ID: <419f08e6$0$292$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:05:38 +0100
Message-ID: <419f08e6$0$292$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> ...
<snip>
Re-reading:
> An User class can't map to an User relation because it is an absurd to
> map types to variables or values (Date's 1stGB).
>
> An unidimensional collection of User objects maps to an User relation.
> This is perfectly possible and it is not a great blunder.
What is the distinction between "User class" and "unidimensional collection of User objects" that makes the first a blunder, and the second not? What IS an user class in your definition? What is an unidimensional collection? - a kind of "set of users", that is objects of the same kind? Received on Sat Nov 20 2004 - 10:05:38 CET