|Subject||RE: [firebird-support] Silly but necessary question|
> At 10/26/2004 04:15 AM (Tuesday), Daniel Jimenez wrote:I believe we share an understanding of DB and table concepts :-)
> >I am designing DB's for several applications where there is a lot of
> >shared data, FK's, etc. Since FireBird does not support cross DB
> >references, constraints, triggers, etc. How do people normally deal
> >with this problem when writing large complex systems with
> multiple DB's
> >where there exist a need to created FK's across DB's which
> are required
> >within triggers, constraints ,etc for the purpose of
> insertion, deletion and updates.
> >How do you attack the problem of transaction handling? Etc.
> Daniel, from your questions I'm beginning to suspect that
> your idea of a "DB" and ours is different. When you refer to
> a DB are you referring to a single list of records? That is
> known to us as a table. To us, many tables are stored in a
> single DB and these tables can refer to each other's records.
> If you are actually talking about references which cross our
> DB boundaries, my first question is why do you need to store
> records in multiple DBs? Can they not be held in one for
> multiple applications to use?
My problem is very simple, I am required to design a DB for a very large and
complex system, thus having a single DB for this complex system IMHO would
be as bad as coding "The Banking System" used by a major bank in a single
Therefore, since code is group together into major packages or modules, data
should in the same way be grouped together into tables in a DB based on some
programmatically major package or component.
Thus, some data may be shared across package boundaries, but most of the
time data within a DB will only be used by a single major package or
component. This is the reason why I will need cross DB references for things
such as procedures, triggers, constraints etc. My aim is for an orthogonal
I hope this may help you and others in the group understand my question.
Comvision Pty. Ltd.