Re: [gnome-db] Oracle, Table Names and Progress

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 14:30, Steve Fosdick wrote:
> > -> for every object, a list of flags describing what the user which is
> >    connected can do on the objects (select, ...)
> 
> Have you thought what flags?  We want to be sure to cover all the bases.
> The ones that spring to mind are: SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE,
> ALTER, DROP.
> 
I guess this would be better done via the GRANT/REVOKE API we have
talked about (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82679). Another
to call to retrive the permissions for any object should be added, apart
from the GRANT/REVOKE calls in each provider.

Please comment on this one, and if we all agree, I'll start the
implementation in the libgda framework.

> > -> show objects of a selected namespace as an option
> > -> all the objects as an option.
> 
> This sounds sensible.  I think the "all objects" option would still have
> to be "all object on which the connected user has some privilege".  if
> not we would run into problems, either getting the complete list or in
> describing the objects once they have been returned. 
yes, I also think so. All objects should return only the objects to
which the user has at least read privileges (or SELECT or whatever it
is).

>  
> > This idea necessitates the following implementations:
> > -> implement the GDA_CONNECTION_SCHEMA_NAMESPACES schema to get
> >    all the namespaces
> 
> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> wrote:
> 
> > hmm, but namespaces is PostgreSQL nomenclature. For Oracle, that would
> > be schemas, for others might be different. Anyway, namespaces sounds
> > ok to me, so if people implementing Oracle/other providers agree on
> > using that name, let's do it.
> 
> When I checked the PostgeSQL 7.3 documentation it seemed to call them
> schemas too and I got the distinct impression that schemas is a concept
> from the SQL92 standard.  That said I am not bothered what we call them,
> only that we have a clean implemenation that works.
> 
right, we called them namespaces to not be confused with libgda schemas,
iirc. Sorry for the confusion.

cheers