From: Chuck E. <ec...@mi...> - 2000-08-18 03:18:35
|
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 >left). 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. -Chuck |