Chapter 2 of Base Guide progress

Do you want me to look at it again, or would it be better for someone
else to do so? They might have a fresh perspective on it.

Hi :slight_smile:
I think it might be fastest for Hazel to complete it.  So go for it if you are up for it Hazel :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I think it might be fastest for Hazel to complete it.

Too late! Update in the drafts folder just now.
Mostly content, since Hazel's proof reading is great.

Since a lot of it is about the content, there are many "notes" rather than changes of
text.

It's really important to make the distinction between a DBMS (that's a program that
manages a database), and the data that we put into a database that we've built
using a DBMS.

I also think that's it's REALLY important to make it clear that HSQLDB is not THE
Base DBMS, just the default setting. There is no "Base DBMS", it can use many
different engines. And, sticking my neck out even further, I'd say it'd be good
to play down the built in version of HSQLDB, or at least not play it up. Since it's
limitations have upset even one of our most famous "Base" names, Mr Pitonyak, I think
it would be good to play up the ability to use (almost) whatever DMBS you want rather
than giving the impression that HSQLDB is "it".

Ok, steady.. Aim... Fire!

Regards
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

Fire one! [:wink: ]
     The one thing that has always confused me: What is Base? What
should be put as the answer to this question? Just how much information
do people need to know? How do we tell them that Base may not be the
program for them? [Personally, I would prefer to stay away from all the
technical such as DBMS or RDBMS. What matters is what should a person do
to use Base for the tasks that they have [if Base can do them].(IMO, of
course)
     I have not downloaded what you have done yet, but I have a feeling
that I will have many questions for you for a while when I have a chance
to look over what you have done.
     This definitely going to be a learning experience on my part, and I
look forward to that.

BASE is LibO's FREE, OPEN, AND MORE FLEXIBLE (since we now can connect to
every major DB out there) Data Base interaction program. It is a program
that fits for SIMPLISTIC Databases (it can get complicated jobs done, but
if you are into those you are in to less hassle if you rethink your DB
interaction needs), it is OUR substitute for that ugly thing those other
guys call Access (but our program needs some work to get known and some
major uplift on the development side - documentation withstanding :)) .

Well that of course is just IMHO ...

HSQLDB is java based little gremlin (that even bites you in the hand when
you DO FOLLOW their user manual), we should KILL it ... now!!!

Thank heavens devs got around to put the postgresql driver in this (3.5)
release, or I would never even try to get people interested in translating
the BASE manuals (altough I of course haven't read them - not old ou new -
so my opinion is worth a little less than that of the Easter Bunny).

Rogerio

Comments inline:

> > > I think it might be fastest for Hazel to complete it.
> >
> > Too late! Update in the drafts folder just now.
> > Mostly content, since Hazel's proof reading is great.
> >
> > Since a lot of it is about the content, there are many "notes" rather
> than changes of
> > text.
> >
> > It's really important to make the distinction between a DBMS (that's a
> program that
> > manages a database), and the data that we put into a database that we've
> built
> > using a DBMS.
> >
> > I also think that's it's REALLY important to make it clear that HSQLDB
> is not THE
> > Base DBMS, just the default setting. There is no "Base DBMS", it can
> use many
> > different engines. And, sticking my neck out even further, I'd say it'd
> be good
> > to play down the built in version of HSQLDB, or at least not play it up.
> Since it's
> > limitations have upset even one of our most famous "Base" names, Mr
> Pitonyak, I think
> > it would be good to play up the ability to use (almost) whatever DMBS
> you want rather
> > than giving the impression that HSQLDB is "it".
> >
> > Ok, steady.. Aim... Fire!
> >
> > Regards
> > Mark Stanton
> > One small step for mankind...
>
> Fire one! [:wink: ]
> The one thing that has always confused me: What is Base?

BASE is LibO's FREE, OPEN, AND MORE FLEXIBLE (since we now can connect to
every major DB out there) Data Base interaction program. It is a program
that fits for SIMPLISTIC Databases (it can get complicated jobs done, but
if you are into those you are in to less hassle if you rethink your DB
interaction needs), it is OUR substitute for that ugly thing those other
guys call Access (but our program needs some work to get known and some
major uplift on the development side - documentation withstanding :)) .

Well that of course is just IMHO ...

     Still not usable in the Base Guide. How is it more flexible. What
DB's does it access that Access or other programs do not? What do you
mean by simplistic databases? What is not a simplistic DB? What would
readers think this mean? How many people need and use simplistic DB's?
Or, is this more about company databases vs. databases used in a home
for a family's use? And why mention Access at all? Who cares if it is
ugly? What does being a substitute have to do with anything?

HSQLDB is java based little gremlin (that even bites you in the hand when
you DO FOLLOW their user manual), we should KILL it ... now!!!

     Then what purpose does Base serve using HSQLDB as its database
engine? Why even write the Base Guide if the whole thing is going to be
changed?

Thank heavens devs got around to put the postgresql driver in this (3.5)
release, or I would never even try to get people interested in translating
the BASE manuals (altough I of course haven't read them - not old ou new -
so my opinion is worth a little less than that of the Easter Bunny).

Rogerio

--Dan

Then what purpose does Base serve using HSQLDB as its database
engine? Why even write the Base Guide if the whole thing is
going to be changed?

Because Base can use a wide range of database programs to hold and
"dispense" the data is uses, the guide doesn't have to be "about" any
of them.

The job that Base is doing is providing useful interaction with the
beast that does the work. Perhaps it's a bit like being a terminal
to a mainframe, but the terminal isn't dumb, and it's also used to
manage the mainframe, not just get information into and out of it.

Because of this management aspect, the guide does need to teach the
reader something about design, which of course has been one of the
reasons databases aren't such a generally used tool as spreadsheets.
I don't mind using HSQLDB commands and requirements as an *example*
of that, as long as the ability to use all sorts of backends is
really headlined.

The really good thing about Base is that it provides tools to put
that data into stuff the user wants; reports, mailmerged documents,
onscreen forms. That's the stuff that the database engines don't do,
because they're (quite rightly) focused on doing the work, not
presenting the work.

As such, Base is, or could be, a much more comprehensive tool than
Access, and in fact any current database product on the desktop, of
which there is a serious lack these days. If you want to know,
that's why I'm here. Microsoft are killing one of the best databases
around, Visual FoxPro, without any credible product to fill the gap.
And to be honest, even that doesn't match up to Writer+mailmerge
fields+backend connectivity.

Regards
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

Fire one! [:wink: ]

Dive dive dive... :smiley:

How do we tell them that Base may not be the program for them?

I don't think that is ever the case :

    1) If they want to store & manipulate data
    2) if we ignore/allow for the broken bits of the program

I have not downloaded what you have done yet, but I have a feeling
that I will have many questions for you for a while when I have a
chance to look over what you have done.

As many as you like. Clarity from enquiry, fabulous!
     
:slight_smile:
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

Hi :slight_smile:
I find it easier to think of it as front-end vs back-end.  Base is a good gui front-end to make it easier to see and manipulate the data.  The data is held in a back-end.

I think we want to keep the guide as simple as possible.

Back-ends might be small and light such as the HSqlDb one or even a spreadsheet  for 'simple' address books and such-like or a back-end might be something hefty such as MariaDb / MySql or Postgresql, possibly even something that is in a web-site and hosted on a web-facing server.  I don't think Access easily allows you that level of scalability.

Ideally we would avoid the complexity of the whole back-end vs front-end issue and just deal with Base as if it was like a default Access.  Sadly the default built-in back-end in Base seems to be the main cause of problems whenever people have trouble with Base.  However, also it seems that one of the biggest advantages of Base is that it makes it much more obvious and easier to connect to a wider range of back-ends.  When you try to create a new Base file one of the first questions it asks is "Where is the data?".

Hmm, well the version of java can also often be a problem but it's easier to handle on
the Users List or in forums because more "normal" users are familiar with dealing with java problems.

So, i don't envy anyone trying to write or develop documentation or Faqs or anything because it's difficult to know what to aim for.  It seems to be a moving target too.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

The point to my questions and comments is that the Base Guide
should describe what can be done with Base. As such, mentioning other
programs other than to provide instructions as to how to access
databases made by them serves no purpose at all. But I see no purpose to
include negative comments about Base or any of the other programs.
     So, let us please limit any comments to this.

--Dan

OK. I've got it now. I'll try to keep this strictly a proofing/style job since the content has already been chewed over by Mark. In any case, I'm not in a position to judge content as I only have LO 3.4 and I'm in not in a mood to upgrade.

None of my "content" comments are version specific at all. They're
more to do with the concepts that Dan's putting forward.

Disagreement, discussion and resolution (preferably in that order,
though perhaps with a couple more loops) very welcome.

Regards
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

Tom:
            I agree with you but I can't see what is the of mentioning
Access. I mean, we know that Access works in an specific way and Base
work in others, but I don't we have to mention it in the documentation.
I think that saying is a replacement for others database front-ends is
enough. No need of mentioning any other name. And no need of saying
that is ugly and that other is pretty.
We only have to describe our application, that's all.
What do is important is to say is "this is better because..." and
describe why is flexible, easy to use, etc.

Is my opinion
Lailah

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
I agree with you and Dan that we should avoid mentioning Access by name even as a comparison.  It might be necessary sometimes but i think it can be avoided for the most part.  Imo most/all of my last email shouldn't go into documentation.  It was really just to clarify a few things between ourselves because there seemed to be a little confusion somewhere. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I agree with what Dan said earlier in this thread,
".. the Base Guide
should describe what can be done with Base. As such, mentioning other
programs other than to provide instructions as to how to access
databases made by them serves no purpose at all. But I see no purpose to
include negative comments about Base or any of the other programs."

IIRC, if one is using LO on Windows, Base can connect to an Access
database. This is important for people to know, because if they can't
at least get their data from a previous database (created by something
else), then they won't want to switch. If there are any issues with
using an Access database with Base as the front-end, then it's only
fair to tell them.

--Jean

I never intended to put ACCESS in our documentation, if we must as Jean
showed above we could use "MS Office's Data Base" ... IIIIIRRRRCCC indeed
:slight_smile:

What I was doing is giving some brainstormig response for the questions Dan
asked, it was just that ... branstorming.

Rogerio

> > I think it might be fastest for Hazel to complete it.
>
> Too late! Update in the drafts folder just now.
> Mostly content, since Hazel's proof reading is great.
>
> Since a lot of it is about the content, there are many "notes" rather than changes of
> text.
>
> It's really important to make the distinction between a DBMS (that's a program that
> manages a database), and the data that we put into a database that we've built
> using a DBMS.
>
> I also think that's it's REALLY important to make it clear that HSQLDB is not THE
> Base DBMS, just the default setting. There is no "Base DBMS", it can use many
> different engines. And, sticking my neck out even further, I'd say it'd be good
> to play down the built in version of HSQLDB, or at least not play it up. Since it's
> limitations have upset even one of our most famous "Base" names, Mr Pitonyak, I think
> it would be good to play up the ability to use (almost) whatever DMBS you want rather
> than giving the impression that HSQLDB is "it".
>
> Ok, steady.. Aim... Fire!
>
> Regards
> Mark Stanton
> One small step for mankind...

Fire one! [:wink: ]
     The one thing that has always confused me: What is Base?

Base is a software tool used to create and manipulate ODF database
documents.

ODF database documents are compound documents that allow users to treat
a collection of items, all related to a single data source, as a whole.

This includes:
- the information required to connect to a database source
- user configuration data for displaying ra
+w data from this data source
- query definitions for extracting record sets from this data source
- data entry forms for manipulating data in the data source
- report definitions used to export raw data into ODF text documents and
spreadsheets

Additionally, Base offers a number of utilities for working with the
data source:
- data strucure definition functionality
- ability to import/export records from one data source to another
- scripting capabilities allowing the user to expand the build functions
n the package.

...

anyway - just what came to mind.

Best wishes,

//drew

Tom:
            I agree with you but I can't see what is the of mentioning
Access. I mean, we know that Access works in an specific way and Base
work in others, but I don't we have to mention it in the documentation.
I think that saying is a replacement for others database front-ends is
enough. No need of mentioning any other name. And no need of saying
that is ugly and that other is pretty.
We only have to describe our application, that's all.
What do is important is to say is "this is better because..." and
describe why is flexible, easy to use, etc.

Well, the ability to work with MS Access is a highly important question
and one that if you are being truthful is not really possible with Base.

You can connect to an Access Database as a data source, but you are not
able to make much if any use of major parts of the data (beyond the
tables) held in the MS Access file.

There are also a number of very difficult situations with MS Access that
are commonly the downfall of attempting actual interoperability.

Some of the things that the manual should point out, IMO, queries will
be viewed in Base as either tables or views - this means that users are
often befuddled as to why some Access table will not take updates -
cause they aren't tables, kids.

Queries in MS Access support features for which there are NO equivalents
in Base, without resorting to scripting.

Forms in MS Access support features for which there are NO equivalents
in Base, and you likely would need C++ code to duplicate those, forget
the scripting.

The same can be said for reports.

MS Access supports the ability to connect to multiple data sources,
another 'feature' for which there is NO equivalent in Base or
LibreOffice for that matter. (Two data sources on a stand alone form are
not the same thing)

[However, this actually does have a work around - you simply must use a
DB backend that can do this instead]

Anyway - I would, if I where actually doing this and so I it's my call,
include some information about the issue with queries being picked up as
'views' as this bites a lot of people..beyond that, it's likely FAQ type
stuff, IMO.

Best wishes

//drew

None of my "content" comments are version specific at all. They're
more to do with the concepts that Dan's putting forward.

Disagreement, discussion and resolution (preferably in that order,
though perhaps with a couple more loops) very welcome.

So - the latest version with everyone's edits is available where
exactly? Sorry for being so dense.

Thanks in advance,

//drew

It's here:
http://www.odfauthors.org/libreoffice/english/base-guide/feedback-lo3.4/planning-and-designing-your-database-1/view

Hazel has it locked for editing, but you can still download a copy.

--Jean