Re: Navigation question
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:49:28 GMT
Message-ID: <cCCFh.2928$PV3.38673_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> I did a quick scan of this document, and found no references to "logical
> navigation". There were many references to "physical navigation", and
> several references to "navigation" in general, but no references to
> "logical navigation".
>
> Could you post an excerpt from the paper that argues against logical
> navigation?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:49:28 GMT
Message-ID: <cCCFh.2928$PV3.38673_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Walt wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172707120.938940.196760_at_t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Feb 28, 4:00 pm, "Walt" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>"dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>><quote> >>>I am still not satisfied that I understand just what navigation is bad >>>and why "logical navigation" of the types I have presented is clumped >>>in with phyiscal navigation and considered an anti-pattern by some. >>> >>>Thanks. --dawn >>><end quote> >>> >>>Who clumps it in with physical navigation? >> >>The Third-Generation Database System Manifesto that I referred to >>earlier is one such.
>
>
> I did a quick scan of this document, and found no references to "logical
> navigation". There were many references to "physical navigation", and
> several references to "navigation" in general, but no references to
> "logical navigation".
>
> Could you post an excerpt from the paper that argues against logical
> navigation?
Please stop feeding the troll. "Logical navigation" is nonsense as was long ago explained in this thread. Although, I am certain that explanation has now been lost to any deserving audience among the scores and scores of gibberish posts the troll feeders have coaxed from the troll. Received on Thu Mar 01 2007 - 16:49:28 CET