At 11:01 PM 8/17/00 -0400, Daniel Green wrote:
>Do we want it to be as EOF-like as possible, or do we just want it to
>provide an easy-to-use interface to databases? I suppose we'd want an
>Adaptor-type class so that it can access non-SQL databases (if there are any
1. Yes, very much like EOF, but I can see it being broken into layers so
that you can access it in a simple, chunky fashion or a more granular EOF
fashion. e.g., the best of both worlds. Also my colleague has used an
EOF-like product that takes things a step further and lets you define the
nature of the relationship, not just one-to-many and one-to-one, but things
like who owns who and stuff.
2. I'm no much concerned about non-SQL databases, but adapters are still
needed because SQL varies from DB to DB (and of course, it wouldn't hurt to
allow other types of data stores).
>If somebody else wants to do it, that's fantastic. It's just the area where
>I can see being most useful. :)
Well let's see if we can get something going before the end of the month.