On Thursday 02 August 2007 11:38, Martijn Tonies wrote:

> > On Wednesday 01 August 2007 17:33, Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
> > > Yup... only that external datasources is one of the very demanded
> > > features, but most people can live with 31-byte long identifiers. I'm
> > > inclined to put such dependency on our roadmap at the moment.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'd like to hear list of problems with ASA's approach to
> > > external tables, since it is an alternative approach to Vlad's and does
> > > not require XSQLDA version change and therefore can be implemented with
> > > current API.
> >
> > Well, first question - how does it look from SQL standard POV? With
>
> slightly
>
> > modified (avoid '@' in favour of '.') Vlad's suggestion we are getting
>
> quite
>
> > close to it: <schema name>.<table name>. On the other hand I do not see
>
> In my opinion, schema.table is different from table@datasource and it
> should be.
>
> The "at datasource" kinda makes sense to me, from a developer pov and
> clearly
> distinguishes between a local table and a remote table.
>

But up to my understanding use of schema.table is what most of people are
waiting for. And if we follow (I expect we follow) suggestion to use
vulcan-style providers as remote providers defining datasource, there is
virtually no difference between firebird and non-firebird datasources.