Today I think that why it doesn't take place in Baan side. If there is , I am sure that it will be very useful for programming, reports .... for everything.
May be this is available in new versions. What do you think about it ?
also I am aware of negative effects of this like performance.

Thanks for your comments...

Hi,

What you are expecting in terms of View Structure?

You mean Structure of table or else any DB utility.

I think, ttaad41/500 works for me with satisfactory help. Do you expect any more info. from View Structure?

regards,

-Suhas

I don't mean tables , I mean DB View and their usage.

Why should Baan use views? What are in your opinion the advantage of using it? Why whould you want that Ban uses views?

Kind regards,
Dick

That's good Question what I mean. Then Why RDBMS use DB VIEWS ???

Thanks...

Straight forward..RDBMS not made for BaaN only.

Somebody made here DB views for accessing non-BaaN tables, including $ column names. Hence, in that case it will be too useful.

regards,

-Suhas

Many years ago RDBM systems were "flavour of the month" - If you didn't have one, your business was already dead, it just hadn't realized it yet. Nobody would buy software that didn't run against Oracle, Informix etcetcetc.
(think of all the advantages of relational technology and list them here)

Companies like Baan wanted to offer their s/w against all commercially viable DB's - if you already have (say, oracle) installed this will reduce your TCO of Baan (or SAP, or whatever) as you don't have to buy the DB component - you already have it.

BUT: None of the databases implement Codd's true relational model - e.g. in informix the only four ANSI standard commands were create/drop database and create/drop table. So, if Baan code was written to leverage the power of Informix, it wouldn't work on Oracle et. al.

You'll notice that Baan doesn't use some really useful stuff like triggers and stored procedures, either.

When the DB strategy was adopted, the Baan developers didn't understand relational - but the DB vendors didn't care - it boosted their sales, too.

Later, you'll notice that query.extensions were introduced to try to make the DB do the work rather than the application, but this was not well received by the development world as they didn't know much about RDBMS either.

Software is designed by Marketing people, bought by non-technical directors, and very often operated by trained monkeys.

That's why.

Thanks for your comment. But I'am side of my approach. I belive that Baan can handle Views on the program by using table definitions. I understand your view Arthas. If views give acceleration to Data logic. Why not used ?. So many programmers use needless tables or temp tables for this reason. These are extra work and unwanted situation for us.

Thanks All for your comments.

This can be achieved - you and I know how to do it, but then the system is "non-standard" and "unsupportable".

I can't tell you how many times I've had fights with senior decision makers within the Baan Company (many years ago, I'm not there anymore) about things like Referential Integrity. For three years he/she/it nodded sagely when this topic was raised in board-room meetings, and then I was dragged to one side and asked in a whisper "what is referential integrity?"

The days of us squeezing one extra ounce of performance out of a system with 32Mb Ram and 80Gb of disk are long gone - Access is a database these days. Sad. Your children have more processing power on their video driver cards than we ever had to run large companies.

I think...while designing open database (maximum big) architecture...there are other challenges and priorities. That's why basic's should be taken on first priority, other surplus can be added by taking extra efforts externally (internally from DB) from users/developers rather saying unsupportable.

regards,

-Suhas

Really ! Arthas, that's very interesting reply. I don't want to believe that. But
I see what you mean.

Thanks All, I'am waiting others

BUT: None of the databases implement Codd's true relational model - e.g. in informix the only four ANSI standard commands were create/drop database and create/drop table. So, if Baan code was written to leverage the power of Informix, it wouldn't work on Oracle et. al.

You'll notice that Baan doesn't use some really useful stuff like triggers and stored procedures, either.

When the DB strategy was adopted, the Baan developers didn't understand relational - but the DB vendors didn't care - it boosted their sales, too.

Later, you'll notice that query.extensions were introduced to try to make the DB do the work rather than the application, but this was not well received by the development world as they didn't know much about RDBMS either.

Software is designed by Marketing people, bought by non-technical directors, and very often operated by trained monkeys.

That's why.

Sorry to say, but most of these things you can't proof. There are edges of truth in it, but in general I bet it is not true at all. Hope you find another way to get rid of your energy, else I like to discuss it by PM.

Have a nice day and best wishes,
Dick