Subject RE: [IB-Architect] SQL Statement Depandance Mapping
Author Claudio Valderrama C.
Maybe Charlie should continue, since he already caught 75% of my question.
See below, please:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Starkey [mailto:jas@...]
> Sent: Viernes 30 de Junio de 2000 12:31
> At 03:38 AM 6/30/00 -0400, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
> > When I see in the description of the system tables in
> LangRef "Not used by
> >SQL objects", what does it mean, that those tables are not
> touched by such
> >DDL converted to DML?
> I think you'll need to be more specific.

Trying again, it seems the Valderrama2Caro translator works better than the
Valderrama2Starkey translator.

For example, LangRef says:
RDB$VIEW_RELATIONS is not used by SQL objects.
What does "not used" mean here? That the engine's core doesn't use this
table, that some high-level layer in the engine doesn't use it, that the
synchronization with other system tables is not checked or what?

> > Once DML is converted to DDL on system tables, is this
> converted to BLR
> >internally, too?
> Huh? Data manipulation language isn't converted to data definition
> language, even on system tables?
> Jim Starkey

Remember I don't know how IB works internally!
:-) Charlie caught such question, don't worry.

Side note about brainwashing: since Charlie was "configured" by Jim and
Charlie in turn brainwashed other people like Paul Beach and Bill Karwin and
Bill has been posting in the IB newsgroups for some years and I was reading
such newsgroups, I can conclude I was brainwashed in a subtle way by Jim's
original ideas through Bill, so in fact all of us the people that have
remained in the IB newsgroups for more than a year, take subliminal orders
from Jim. Soon, hordes of IB developers/junkies will begin travelling the
world, announcing the IB news to the MS agnostics and Sybase pagans and then
people will sit around Netfrastructure offices waiting for Jim to give them
a little discourse on database design.