|Subject||Re: [ib-support] Idea for a new field type for FB 2,0 or IB 7?|
> I fear we are just trying to substitute a flexible approach we alreadyI think this may be a chicken and egg situation. Personally
> have with something less useful (if also less tedious to implement, I
I have no problem because I use IBO, and that handles this
quite happily. While I should add protection for people who
bypass the applications, the usual reason is because
something in this area has been broken, and so having the
server end stuff probably will not help. The sequential
numbering becomes an easier problem to handle once you are
managing the insertions from the client so getting the
server to be too cleaver may be more of a hinderance!
All that said, standardisation of simple primary keys may be
useful, and would sit under IBO without breaking it.
L.S.Caine Electronic Services