Re: Should we propose comp.databases.design?
From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:35:35 -0500
Message-ID: <77ov62-64f.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
> group.
>
> Or perhaps comp.databases.practice? Since these discussions are often
> about what we are or are not in favour of doing in practice rather than
> in theory.
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:35:35 -0500
Message-ID: <77ov62-64f.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Tony Andrews wrote:
>> Laconic2 mentioned at one point that he would consider this a useful
> group.
>> Personally, I believe much of my own discussion would go there if it >> existed.
>
> Or perhaps comp.databases.practice? Since these discussions are often
> about what we are or are not in favour of doing in practice rather than
> in theory.
I would say at this point we seem to have support for .design, but i have never seen .practice come up. Can you be persuaded that they are the same thing?
--
Kenneth Downs
java.lang.String.tcpip.usenet.posting.response.sigblock.setSig("After
finally finding the right object abd method to set the sig block, I forgot
what I wanted to say!");
Received on Fri Nov 19 2004 - 00:35:35 CET