I don't believe we should have things the same as Access just because
its the way that Access does it.
If we humans didn't strive for a better way to do things we would still
be rubbing sticks together to make fire.
If theres an easier way or a better way or even a different way then go
for it.
I agree, a query on a query is a very useful tool and Base should have
something similar but who cares what its called, as long as it works.
Bob Wickham
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Regina,
(feedback to a spec! I love communities :)
First: Nothing of this is nailed down. There are other ways to implement
this (at least in a "solution compatible way"), so I highly appreciate
every feedback.
I have read the document. I understand it in this way: You will make
queries automatically convert to views to use the already existing
feature, that queries on views are possible and you tell the user that
this view would be a "query" but in reality it is a view. Why that
effort? Why mix up the terms?
Well ... you won't like this argueing ;) ... because people keep
screaming for queries in queries. Of course we could simply make views
editable (which in fact is what is internally going in), but even then,
I'm pretty sure a lot of MSA users will keep saying "I want queries in
queries, MSA has it". Even if you tell them they can do the very same
thing by creating a view, and editing it if necessary, they will continue.
That's basically the main idea behind the proposed architecture.
However, as said, this is not nailed down, so keep your arguments coming :)
Thanks & Ciao
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
