| Subject | RE: [Firebird-Architect] RE: Firebird beeing inconsistent in regards to accepting UDFs? |
|---|---|
| Author | Wodzu |
| Post date | 2014-02-16T09:15:49Z |
Exactly, Firebird should protect what belongs to it. But in case of UDF, as Jiri said, Firebird does not have full control over the physical file, so why should it pretend that it has it? Because that is what it does: it is trying to prevent me from registering SP with UDF in one why, but I can still do it in other way. Either it should prevent both ways or allow both ways…
From: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiri Cincura
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:31 AM
To: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Firebird-Architect] RE: Firebird beeing inconsistent in regards to accepting UDFs?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov <sd@...> wrote:
> How about exception that will not allow you to use non-existing table? Sequence?I think the main difference is, that the table/sequence/... is
> Function? Would you like to have them "fixed" as well?..
directly under Firebird's control. But UDF is not. You can change it
freely without Firebird noticing. That's not possible for i.e. table
(OK, you can do it manually editing the file but it's order of
magnitude harder).
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (x2develop.com founder)
http://blog.cincura.net/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com