Re: Foreign key constraint problem

[CRPence <crp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  It really depends both on what you want and need.  If you need to 
deploy [the create and] those changes then a script [either as separate 
members, or one source member per file, or in some code] as either the 
initial CREATE plus ALTER requests or a maintained as an updated CREATE, 
then maintain either type of 'script' as best fits in the change 
management deployment environment.  I do not see any legitimate manner 
in which a switch from DDS to DDL would _eliminate_ the desire to 
maintain source for either the final creation or the original creation 
plus revisions.  Although one could assume that the file or prior 
definitions will always be able to be restored, having the source to 
create the file if/when that is required seems appropriate and prudent 
-- just as with DDS.
  The 'script' for create and revisions can be [SQL stored] procedures 
rather than just plain SQL statement source members.  There will almost 
always be a reason to have something to store as source to maintain the 
original definition of the file [and its changes].  I prefer to always 
maintain one copy of the current definition as one CREATE; and when 
required, revision activity to get from a prior level to current.
  When my updates are deployed as run-time, then a CREATE is the final 
form from the most recent revision [current base release + revisions, 
for file not found, create file to this level of code], and when the 
file already exists the actions performed are the cumulative changes 
applied to the file since whatever base release [+ revision] is found to 
be installed [all revisions since N-x, changes since then are applied]. 
 And when the files might be large, there is actually a separate 
routine coded from each revision level, so only one ALTER is done.

Regards, Chuck
-- All comments provided "as is" with no warranties of any kind 
whatsoever and may not represent positions, strategies, nor views of my 
employer

Jeff Crosby wrote:
> <<SNIP>>
> I'm starting to ask myself another question:  Once I create a file with DDL,
> do I actually _want_ the source for it?  Once I change from "a bunch of
> files" defined in DDS to a "living breathing database" defined in DDL,
> doesn't keeping source members in synch with that database become a real
> maintenance issue?  Am I making sense?