Re: [WebDNA] db admin tool
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2008
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 101476
interpreted = N
texte = It would be nice if this was done by convention and not configuration. For example, a products.db with fields id, maker_id and description would mean that maker_id refers to maker.db and the field id. This is a rails idiom and works nicely. It would mean all those non-conforming legacy databases would need renaming. I think of convention as everyone driving on the right side of the road. A lot of people go to work that way, but not race car drivers. They burn a lot of fuel to drive in a circle. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kenneth Grome
wrote: >> Because there is no mechanism for structuring key fields >> and relationships between databases, it would be a huge >> task to write something that would figure all that out >> automatically. > > The tool doesn't have to figure it out automatically, the > user can simply define these relationships the first time > it is used, and at any other time he feels like it. Then > the key fields and relationships (and other operating > parameters) can be stored in a toolprefs.db file for use > again later. > >> I actually started building a modern, ajax driven db >> admin tool that is much more powerful than the one built >> in the 90s. Essentially it does everything you need =96 >> create a db, edit a db, remove fields, add fields, add >> records, remove records, edit records, search, delete db, >> backup dbs, restore dbs, etc. > > I did this many years ago too (not in ajax though) and I > think I called it Ken's DB Admin. It did everything you > mentioned here and more -- including moving fields around > into different positions so you could change the field > order dynamically any time you felt like it ... :) > > But I used cookies to store the control parameters instead > of storing them in a separate preference file, and later I > learned that cookies aren't the best way to store this > data. Somehow they created an unusual situation where a > user would have to delete them to continue using the tool. > > I never figured out why this happens but if I were to > rebuild it I would most definitely use a prefs file. But > back in the 90's I was determined to make this tool a "one > file" solution so I used cookies to avoid the need for any > additional files. > > ------------------------ > > There's an important issue here that makes this kind of a > tool dangerous to use in some situations too unless you're > aware of it. I only learned this after I had finished > coding my db admin tool: > > When a db contains encrypted data you cannot edit that field > without screwing up that record or possibly trashing the > entire db. So if you use this kind of webdna tool you must > limit its editing use to only those fields that contain > non-encrypted data. > > Naturally the tool could be built to disable editing of > encrypted fields, but it cannot figure out which fields are > encrypted all by itself, so this is an important setting > the user must make in the prefs before the tool will > function properly -- just like setting the name of > the "sku" field in each db so it knows which field contains > a unique value in each record. > > > Sincerely, > Ken Grome > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
It would be nice if this was done by convention and not configuration. For example, a products.db with fields id, maker_id and description would mean that maker_id refers to maker.db and the field id. This is a rails idiom and works nicely. It would mean all those non-conforming legacy databases would need renaming. I think of convention as everyone driving on the right side of the road. A lot of people go to work that way, but not race car drivers. They burn a lot of fuel to drive in a circle. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >> Because there is no mechanism for structuring key fields >> and relationships between databases, it would be a huge >> task to write something that would figure all that out >> automatically. > > The tool doesn't have to figure it out automatically, the > user can simply define these relationships the first time > it is used, and at any other time he feels like it. Then > the key fields and relationships (and other operating > parameters) can be stored in a toolprefs.db file for use > again later. > >> I actually started building a modern, ajax driven db >> admin tool that is much more powerful than the one built >> in the 90s. Essentially it does everything you need =96 >> create a db, edit a db, remove fields, add fields, add >> records, remove records, edit records, search, delete db, >> backup dbs, restore dbs, etc. > > I did this many years ago too (not in ajax though) and I > think I called it Ken's DB Admin. It did everything you > mentioned here and more -- including moving fields around > into different positions so you could change the field > order dynamically any time you felt like it ... :) > > But I used cookies to store the control parameters instead > of storing them in a separate preference file, and later I > learned that cookies aren't the best way to store this > data. Somehow they created an unusual situation where a > user would have to delete them to continue using the tool. > > I never figured out why this happens but if I were to > rebuild it I would most definitely use a prefs file. But > back in the 90's I was determined to make this tool a "one > file" solution so I used cookies to avoid the need for any > additional files. > > ------------------------ > > There's an important issue here that makes this kind of a > tool dangerous to use in some situations too unless you're > aware of it. I only learned this after I had finished > coding my db admin tool: > > When a db contains encrypted data you cannot edit that field > without screwing up that record or possibly trashing the > entire db. So if you use this kind of webdna tool you must > limit its editing use to only those fields that contain > non-encrypted data. > > Naturally the tool could be built to disable editing of > encrypted fields, but it cannot figure out which fields are > encrypted all by itself, so this is an important setting > the user must make in the prefs before the tool will > function properly -- just like setting the name of > the "sku" field in each db so it knows which field contains > a unique value in each record. > > > Sincerely, > Ken Grome > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >
"William DeVaul"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
RE: Missing contexts on NT (1997)
Listserver problem (1997)
Search design (1997)
Re:Need help... (1997)
WebCatalog 2.1b3 - Plugin or cgi ? (1997)
Formating found categories (1997)
Formulas.db + Users.db (1997)
.tmp files (2000)
Upload Plugin (1998)
WebDNA 6.0 backwards compatible? (2004)
Nebulous slow-down problem (2000)
Can this be done? (1997)
WebCat2b12 - nesting [tags] (1997)
Resume Catalog ? (1997)
WebCat2b13 Mac plugin - [sendmail] and checkboxes (1997)
Locking up with WebCatalog... (1997)
two unique banners on one page (1997)
Secure Web Server (1999)
Online reference (1997)
Summing fields (1997)