DB: schema/design discussion

Schuetz, David (David_Schuetz nospam at tds.com)
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:06:37 -0800

> I think that the DB schema is a part of the implementation.
> The server implementation may need to define a DB schema,
> if it will be using an RDBMS, or it might want to use a VFS

Possibly. It may be that the final DB "design" (more so content than table
defs) may be implementable in many fashions, each up to the developer of
whatever server. If somebody *really* wants to store the DB as a
bunch-o-files, that's their decision (so long as the same information is
stored). If that's what you meant by "schema is part of implementation,"
then I agree...I want that part to be as independent as possible, at the
very least to allow for MySQL/Oracle/Postgres/whatever decisions at the
server-admin level.

> I made a post yesterday with "RFC" in the subject.

Ah! Found it. Glanced at it this morning as I "purged" my folder, decided
it was worth keeping and looking at again later. I will be drawing from
that later today, I'm sure. Thanks!

david.

[note -- I wonder if we want to start prefacing subject lines with some
content-tag, like "DB" or "client" or "proto" or something, until we have
separate lists going...] [just another thought...]