Re: DB design issue

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:51:22 GMT
Message-ID: <_ZF7h.21718$cz.329775@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

LC wrote:

> Bob Badour ha scritto:
> 
> 

>>LC wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Badour ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hell no! I suggest you ignore Neo. He's one of the resident cranks on
>>>>the newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>The idea you propose is one most neophytes consider. Basically, you are
>>>>just re-inventing the system catalog while giving up all the integrity
>>>>function of the dbms.
>>>
>>>I understand, so could you suggest me a better appropriate line of
>>>design?
>>
>>Based on such an obviously incomplete requirements specification? No,
>>that would require malpractice.
>>
>>Anyone who gives detailed design recommendations on such scant
>>information is a self-aggrandizing ignorant.
>>
>>You are struggling with complex types and with SQL's abject failure to
>>provide any support for them whatsoever. Any design you come up with for
>>SQL will be a hack or a kludge.

> 
> I agree with you, in fact I just did a raw sketch just to approach a
> first ingenuous solution.
> I was not asking a detailed solution, of course.

You and I apparently disagree on what makes something 'detailed'. I suggest your original question falsifies your most recent assertion.

> And I was not writing a detailed specification of a product.
> My aim is just to talk and confront with other people about an idea.
> 
> Maybe I post to the wrong group?

The correct answer, which I already gave you, does not change based on the newsgroup. Granted, in product-specific newsgroups, you are much more likely to find a self-aggrandizing ignorant who is eager to jump in with both feet. Received on Sat Nov 18 2006 - 09:51:22 CST