In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Leafe wrote: > Why would you want to update more than one table per view? With the > possible exception of a 1:1 relationship that shares the same PK > across two tables, making it essentially one big table, how would > that work?
Yup, fair point. But to me that knocks the question back a level. Why bother with views? My (apparently painfully) limited knowledge suggests that the point of view is to hide underlying data structure to make complex connections disappear and be able to deal with what appears to be a single table. Which is great. But if to do the other half of the job, update, I then have to go back to the complex "underlying" structure, really how much have I gained? It seems to me that I've gained a whole extra level of indirection for really not very much back. I s'pose it's so's I can have a nicely separated client/server setup, hmmm, are we impressed boys & girls? VFP's view wizard lets (in fact seems to want) me to identify key fields in all the tables in the view, and if it knows that, how far off updating more than one of the tables can it be? Mark Stanton One small step for mankind... _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
