Re: Navigation question
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:35:12 GMT
Message-ID: <Ar4Hh.6874$PV3.61305_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Call it what you will; but if it's "navigational", where are the
> pointers to navigate with ?
>
> "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> then it's a duck."
>
> This might look like a duck, but it neither walks nor quacks like one.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:35:12 GMT
Message-ID: <Ar4Hh.6874$PV3.61305_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Tony D wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:36 pm, Sampo Syreeni <d..._at_iki.fi> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>Still, presume you went for maximal selectiveness on each query: you'd >>query on the primary key. Suppose you did this for each foreign key >>value on another table, without any intervening user input or program >>logic. Then your client software would be reimplementing a join on the >>two tables, in a manner I'd call "navigational".
>
> Call it what you will; but if it's "navigational", where are the
> pointers to navigate with ?
>
> "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> then it's a duck."
>
> This might look like a duck, but it neither walks nor quacks like one.
It doesn't even look like one. Well, maybe an ugly one. Hey! Maybe it's a swan! Received on Tue Mar 06 2007 - 03:35:12 CET