> >
> > What is problem? I can attach table or sequence. What can be problem is
> > visibility of nesteded objects (if can be different than functions). My
> > proposal is only concept, and I my first goal is find way for secure
> > storing session's variables and shared native functions, like my sample.
>I
> > didn't think about others objecst and it's maybe error. Or maybe I was
> > wrong in "package is similar to schema". I wonted say so relation
>between
> > function and package is very similar to relation between functions and
> > schema.
>
>Having the relationship be similar is fine... actually implimenting
>packages as some special kind of schema sounds like a really bad idea.
>IMHO, packages should themselves be first-level objects that reside
>under schemas. Of course that raises some interesting questions about
>the visibility of the functions inside a package, which is why IIRC the
>last time this was brought up one of the ideas was to extend schemas so
>that they could contain other schemas.
I unlike concept of nested schemats or packages nested in schema. I don't
see reason for it. About implementation.. package is more special kind of
function for me. But relation between package and function I can create via
dot notation in function's name. It's different from nested syntax from
PL/SQL or ADA. I can easy separate SQL part and non SQL part.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/