Re: Schema/QB: table:field vs. table.field

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

- --- On 13.02.06 20:58 (+0200) Henri Bergius wrote:

>> in one of the recent lists on this list (I'm too lazy to look up the 
>> actual mail now) there was some code example about the QB in respect 
>> with metadata and with joined tables, the synatx there was (if I 
>> remember right) metadata:fielname vs. tablename.fieldname (or vice 
>> versa).
>> 
>> Why is there a distinction between these two cases in syntax?
>
> Because metadata is semantically different that joined tables. Joined 
> tables are connections between data, but metadata is data about that.
>
> Therefore different syntax is justified so people don't think metadata 
> is just "yet another MgdSchema type".

I know that metadata isn't "yet another MgdSchema type", but from its 
semantics I still don't see why somebody should bother about two different 
syntax variants for the same operation.

Wether Midgard joins under the hood, or does some other dark magic, isn't 
important, that is the idea of a Black Box.

KISS is key here IMHO.

... and API consistency (which we don't have very much of it right now).


Live long and prosper!
Torben Nehmer

- -- 
Torben Nehmer, Guenzburg, Bavaria, Germany
http://www.nathan-syntronics.de, mailto:[email protected]
PGP Public Key: https://www.link-m.de/pgp/t.nehmer.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQFD8OSuJPh4Kn6d5FYRAm4BAJ4oATKGKa8T3JYsrliupDGFxTUHZQCg5R1w
sEFJDMa52A0uRXNm7RkeBEo=
=Nv8m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----