Russell E Glaue wrote:
>
> I don't mean to say what way is wrong or right, but if a feature is added
> to MySQL, should not that feature comply with the design and strategy in
> which MySQL is built upon?
>
> If we are going to make the syntax similar to DB2, should we not do this
> for the entire database and not just one feature? Or lets edit the MySQL
> design model to explicitly support the integration of IBM DB2 grammer.
> To have the entire database compliant with a design model in which
> everyone follows, and then have one (or just a few) feature(s) sticking
> out differently seems a bit chaotic. -- It's not a part of the model, yet
> once in the code it will have to be supported for who knows how long.
>
> It's just my opinion that to have standards and a design model is to make
> sure the road in which technology is built on is straight and accurate and
> less breakable. It may not seem like a big deal to waiver from this model
> this one time for this feature, but if we are not strict and do not stick
> to this model, then what about the next time, and the time after that?
>
> Am I wrong?
> What do other people think about this issue?
We already have bits sticking out. See how we already have the
LAST_INSERT_ID()...
IMO, one can afford to be more agnostic and less insular in an
open-source database as long as it doesn't lead to too much bloat or
performance degradation.
ANTONY T CURTIS
