In a message dated 12/6/2001 6:45:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I should not be required to name my column TreeBark, or DogBark as they are already described by the tables they are in. In response to your Water/Oil example, if you tried to perform functions cross referencing a Dog.Bark and a Tree.Bark, you have problems elsewhere. >> Eric, I believe the point many are attempting to make is that without the descriptive names then the next programmer on that database my well attempt to cross reference the barks, not knowing there is a tree.bark and dog.bark. To me, if I REALLY needed to do it this way, build multiple databases, name them however I wanted, and then connect to them separately, and pull all of the data in as SQL server does. Then I would have my separate data classes, and could well do it as SQL Server does it. It's a whole lot more work, but it can definitely be done that way, and accomplish what you desire. That's why I still burn candles as I program on my computer using the whale oil powered generator to power that computer, directed to it through the tube and thimble wiring. Just my $.02 <g> Damon Damon D. Kaufman President Stalder Spring Works, Inc ISO-9002 / QS-9000 Certified 2345 S. Yellow Springs St. Springfield, Ohio 45506 Voice 937-322-6120 Fax 937-322-2126 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
