Re: [Wonder-disc] FrontBaseSQLHelper.sqlForCreateUniqueIndex

[David A. <web...@av...>]

Wouldn't it be better (from a purely DB standpoint) if you didn't  
defer constraints by default? Of course, this would be dragging every  
other DB down to MS SQL Server's level and require use of the Entity  
Ordering code that Chuck wrote.

I would just think that having the DB calls done in the sequence  
required by inter-entity dependancies would reduce the complexity of  
debugging dependancy problems. And if there were problems, they'd all  
be in the Java Code and not with potentially different DB  
configurations.

Also, it better follows WO's concept of DB independence because the  
action of saving to the DB would be the same for every DB, instead of  
now where if you use SQL Server, you must add additional code to your  
project to trigger Entity Ordering.

Dave

On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:

>> I.e there could be insert, update and delete triggers on a table
>> that rely on the uniqueness imposed by a unique constraint.
>> Such triggers would fail if you did not enforce immediate
>> constraint checks.
> Ahh --- yes ... thanks!  I've always wondered about immediate and
> finally have an explanation :)   I think for our users, the vast
> majority would run into problems w/ immediate vs deferred, so I'll
> wait for a complaint on deferred, but at least I know now an example
> where it's useful.
>
> ms
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Wonder-disc mailing list
> Won...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-disc
>
>