RE: SQL help

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, that's why I said 'some'. Naturally the rules are now in the
database, and we need to 'respond' rather than enforce. Something like that?

At 02:27 PM 4/24/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >From: Vernon Hamberg
> >I mean, some of the code would be leaner, but...
>
>I'm not sure I even agree with that. While the database would prevent you
>from violating the RI constraints you may still do code-level RI checking
>just so you can return more user friendly messages to your users. I don't
>see the code being all that less complex if we have to monitor for each
>possible RI violation in an update and then figure out what caused the
>violation and return an appropriate message to the user.
>
>I thing RI in code is still necessary, however I also put the RI in the
>database so I can be assured that something outside my code (DFU, SQL, JDBC,
>etc.) doesn't screw up my tables.
>
>-Walden
>_______________________________________________
>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.