On Fri, March 20, 2009 7:23 am, "Benjohn Barnes" <benj...@fysh.org> wrote:
> Perhaps this is too heavy weight (and perhaps it's really obvious), but > a sensible approach might be to provide a set views to the users, rather > than direct table access? > > * These could probably provide more suitable information for > scripting than raw tables, > * They would provide abstraction from the tables, which might change > with new versions, > * They would (I think?) be read only, which seems like a good thing > for a query interface. > * They might encourage an environment where people provide additional > views (on the existing views, or on the underlying data) that are useful > for particular query tasks. I don't know how many views might be necessary, there might be tables that shouldn't be visible at all. The ability to create your own views might also be useful. > > On the other hand, it might be useful to be able to slice and dice and > write to the database as you see fit... > BUT - it has to be all read-only, subverting an SCM repository is a instant loss-of-checkin-rights/dismissal offence as far as I (and most SCM people) am concerned. If you don't fully understand the schema you will get it wrong eventually. Back door access is only for critical repair, the software should seriously discourage it. There, I've proved that I'm really an SCM tyrant at heart. But you _do_ have to be careful not to break your repository. Regards, Eric P.S. Whoever though that "Subversion" was a good name for an SCM tool? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
