Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!mead!gordon From: gordon@mead.UUCP (Gordon Edwards) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Views (was Re: Database design) Message-ID: <1214@meaddata.mead.UUCP> Date: 24 Aug 90 12:57:35 GMT References: <1990Aug21.182201.10707@oracle.com> Sender: usenet@mead.UUCP Reply-To: mead!gordon@uccba.uc.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH Lines: 24 In article , cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes: |> In article <1990Aug21.182201.10707@oracle.com> mfriedma@oracle.com |> (Michael Friedman) writes: |> |> Don't bother messing with views. |> |> This seems to be a general statement within the community. Why hasn't more |> emphasis been put on "views" as a mechanism for increasing the insulation |> between and application program and the database design? Isn't this what the |> model of views was to support? Views can be used to provide "external" models to users (including applications) and to enhance security. If there were not so many restrictions on their use then they would be very useful. I once worked on an Air Force proposal where we were planning to use views to "hide" data based on the level of the user. We were primarily treating views as read-only; update operations were transformed into base table updates. -- Gordon Edwards Mead Data Central, Dayton OH