For continuation threads, could we put a link to the new thread in the closing post?
Done for Natter 3 --> 4.
That's my girl... That's my good girl.
Kaylee ,'Serenity'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Jon B. - Nov 15, 2002 11:55:49 am PST #1495 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Herah - Nov 15, 2002 12:10:07 pm PST #1496 of 10000
I don't want to be Superman. I want to stay little and be next to Mommy.
I don't know how I got subscribed to Natter 4. I was worrying about remembering to subscribe, and then it just popped up. I wonder what happened?
Independent of the new threads issue, I would like a Subscribe button in the thread. Going to the profile and hunting through a big list of threads for the right checkbox is awkward.
Herah - Nov 15, 2002 12:10:07 pm PST #1497 of 10000
I don't want to be Superman. I want to stay little and be next to Mommy.
Herah - Nov 15, 2002 12:10:08 pm PST #1498 of 10000
I don't want to be Superman. I want to stay little and be next to Mommy.
Liese S. - Nov 15, 2002 2:15:41 pm PST #1499 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
I don't want a subscribe button in the thread. But I can't articulate why, so carry on. Bureaucracy announcements seem fine.
Typo Boy - Nov 15, 2002 2:42:07 pm PST #1500 of 10000
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
Oh and John H. In terms of putting a primary non-meaningful key on each table. If you need some formal arguments to back up your view point google on "Surrogate Key" and "Date" (Of Codd and Date who invented relational theory).
Date has always been my favorite database theorist. Codd is the guy who made the big breakthrough - databases would work better if they were designed to conform to certain mathematical prinicples . But then he kept on adding more and more requirements without stopping to think what made sense.
It it was Date who said stuff like. OK - we need to deal with null in relational databases. But that doesn't mean we need true mathematical nulls, because the introduces four valued logic which is actually less powerful than two valued logic. Why don't we just have user defined null handling...? Codd? Codd? NOOO... DON'T PRESS THE BIG RED BUTTON!
John H - Nov 15, 2002 2:51:03 pm PST #1501 of 10000
I hereby solemnly promise to go away, read up on this, come back and find that funny, Gar!
Typo Boy - Nov 15, 2002 3:02:42 pm PST #1502 of 10000
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
uhh OK. So I'm a geek. But Nulls aside, if you need it, Codd totally has your back on the non-meaningful primary key thing.
§ ita § - Nov 15, 2002 3:06:13 pm PST #1503 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
We were discussing non-meaningful primary keys? When?
Typo Boy - Nov 15, 2002 3:11:56 pm PST #1504 of 10000
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
John H. mentioned as an aside that someone at his work is opposed to non-meaningful primary keys. John H is (rightfully in my opinion) strongly in favor of them. I was just mentioning that Date (of Codd and Date) gives strong theoretical support for surrogate keys - in case the guy might be impressed by that sort of cite. And then I made a joke about an old Date+Codd dispute over nulls, which exposed as having an unneccesarily obscure sense of humor. OK,not everyone has a favorite database theorist...