Dear Doug,

>
>Say what? Delphi is late binding?
>

I think the question I'm posing here is:

1. Should triggers be statically linked to the owner table only? or,
2. Can we also have triggers as (dynamic) interfaces.

Or, in Object-Oriented lingo,

1. Is a trigger A_PART_OF the table? Or, is it more like
2. The table HAS_(A) trigger.

For example,

1. My Hand is A_PART_OF me. I can't lend you my hand.
2. I HAVE_A hammer, I can lend you my hammer.

Or, in the more familiar terms of Delphi.

1. Is a trigger more like a specific method of the table that owns it.
2. Or can we have triggers that are more like INTERFACEs that tables can
share code of.

So, Answer is:

At present, TRIGGERS in IB is more like A_PART_OF the table. (Static)
But what I'm proposing with templates is for IB to have triggers that are
also more like HAVE_A relationship. (dynamic).

Again like ROLES and USERS
You can change the privileges on ROLES and the USERS in those ROLES would
reflect the change without having each change in ROLES cascaded down to each
INDIVIDUAL user.

Like Template Triggers (I'm proposing)
When you change code in Template Triggers, the Triggers that are based on
it, should reflect that change without having those changes physically and
individually cascaded down to them.

That's why I thought of using the early-binding and late-binding analogy.

Joseph Alba
jalba@...