https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104651
--- Comment #3 from Alex Thurgood <[email protected]> ---
My only comment here would be that our ODB files interface with a large number
of db engines, many of which treat Views as virtual table objects.
See, for example :
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190174.aspx
where even Microsoft considers a view to be a virtual table, and:
https://blogs.office.com/2012/08/08/access-2013-and-sql-server/
where using Access with SQL Server turns all Queries into server-side Views.
In Access 2007, per :
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/View-and-manage-objects-by-using-the-Navigation-Pane-274dfc5a-281b-472b-94e2-ef931c5cc590#bm4
views would appear to be displayed under the category "Tables and Related
Views".
MySQL Views are considered to be virtual tables but the MySQLWorkbench UI
displays Views in a separate category under "Views".
My point being that if there is no general over-arching consistency in how
things are done in other existing graphical DBMS products, it begs the question
of why we should decide to implement what I would assume to be a fairly
invasive code change - currently our db objects are referenced mainly as XML in
the ODB file with a particular internal directory structure for some objects -
and the corresponding UI code to display them. All of this notwithstanding the
developer resources to do so.
If you have such resources, and can draw up a spec for implementation, then it
could at least be proposed for discussion - otherwise IMHO it is just wishful
thinking.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
