Re: Conf: argue !

On 26 Feb 2005 at 0:55, Manuel Holtgrewe wrote:

> Wim Niemans ri schrieb:
> > On 25 Feb 2005 at 13:52, Manuel Holtgrewe wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Wim Niemans ri schrieb:
> >>
> >>>On 23 Feb 2005 at 0:22, Manuel Holtgrewe wrote:

> For a full explanation about the relational model and further DB 
> techniques, read Chris Date's "Introduction to Database Systems".

Thanks for your help. I'm a legacy guy. I'm coming from the mainframe 
world. You cannot know I've been teaching this topic back in 1976.

> > And...eeeh...did you notice that the proposal for the table in the draft 
> > is just a complete normalization of conf_values (excluding future 
> > additions offcourse) ?
> 
> I did not mean to offense you. It has just been my regular side punch at 
> SQL and so called "relational databases". Sorry to confuse you.

I see now how it all fits. I'm offering my excuses if you feel personally 
targeted by my expressions. If you're not feeling that way, I'm offering 
my excuses to the list-subscribers for boring them. ;-))

Anyway, to me, personally, the discussion is about the API. That's about 
30 text lines.
Than there is a discussion how to implement the API. SQL is a candidate 
for that. The proposal is about 21 text lines.

> > At the current technology level, yes, it's simple. But anybody is invited 
> > to come up with a simpler or faster solution.
> 
> Sorry, I do not understand you here? Why does it need to be faster? It 
> should be moderately fast and if you cache it - who cares about the one 
> time "compile" run?

It doesn't have to be faster or simpler. I reached my creative-boundary 
with this. All I said was 'everybody **IS INVITED** to come up 
with.......etc......'.

wim niemans