[fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 -AddNewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-Take II

Jason Birch Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca
Tue Jul 31 11:49:15 EDT 2007

Greg wrote:

> Other than currently specified, how would you propose that
> the required information be exposed?

I still don't have a really clear idea of the justification for
IsVirtual, other than as a leak in the abstraction model to allow users
to distinguish between their physical tables and their views.

If it's about the client disallowing updates to the data, I think it
would be better to have the provider say that the class is read-only.

Barbara wrote:

> The client application does not have to use it, can only
> expose it to the user as a view-based class. My response
> was to the question how the application can use it.

I think that's my point.  The application should not be using IsVirtual
as a proxy for any kind of "understood" behaviour about the provider.
If there is information that the client needs to know about a class
(such as read-only, etc) then these should be extracted from specific
schema attributes rather than by making guesses based on whether it's
virtual or not?


More information about the fdo-internals mailing list