In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ted Roche wrote: > On 8/9/07, Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seems to me that the big disadvantage of views is the inability to > > update more than one table via the view, or have I got a big chunk of > > missing knowledge? > > The latter, and it's relational database theory. One view should > update one and only one table. Updating more than one is somewhere > between difficult and impossible to achieve with 100% reliability. The > solution is to update a series of views within a transaction.
That sounds a bit like "it's the way it is because it's the way it is". Why don't my view do that (update the tables of which it's composed individually, wrapped up in a transaction), since, as you point out, the solution is relatively simple and mechanical? Why offer a solution and then make me do half the work? Regards 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.
