By adding a field to the table that you want to store your generic "name" and "value" fields into - you increase it's ability to accept values for different reasons exponentially (or is it geometrically?). My suggestion is to add another field - call it "type". This new field would contain a value that you could use to group all your variables together with. Kinda like tieing a bunch of sticks together so that when you grab the bunch your get them all - same idea with the data fetching routine - grab them by "type" not by variable name. If you do this you limit the Disk I/O and optimize the use of buffering available for which ever data base engine you are using.

This new field now groups all your variables - you fetch them (using your WHERE clause by including the new "type" field). Once you have all your vairables - you can allow the user to alter them in any fashion you wish. Or for that matter, the program can alter them in any fashion it wishes.

Ok - with that understanding - now you can extend any database table without having to specifically add new fields to existing tables - you simply add data to an already existing table - this new data allows you to group, identify and quantify the new field data. So - for instance - there is an already existing table named MonthlyStats - you need a field for MeanSales - you simple add a record in the the "other" table (the one you added "type" to) type = MonthlyStats, name - MeanSales, value=1,200,000.00.

If you add some "smart comments" into your code where you place these "hooks" - you can then later search and replace this code with code that looks at the parent table (the one you extended) - this of course assumes that the "quick fix" you did to avoid having to bring the database server down for maintenance to add a field earlier has at some point been done. Oh yeah - you would have to create a data migration utility to take the data from one table to the parent.

If this is still confusing (as I'm sure it is) - just drop me a note and I will forward you my phone number. Maybe I can explain this better in that context.

Ok, I think I understand now... Let me see if I can make it clear, and please tell me if I am way off base or not... :o)

Ok, I have these fields currently in my DB:
name content
I should add one called "type".

Then when I call the variables I should do it in one big swipe:


get_page_content("some_type");
[download]

Something like that, and it would then go load each value for that type?
Here is how I currently do it:


$default_font_family = get_page_content("default_font_family");
[download]

Each variables '$default_font_family' is the same name in the db: 'default_font_family'.
So how could I do that, where it will take the "name" and make it a variable, without telling it like I do: 'name = sub('name');'
Could I do something like this in the subroutine:

    my $type = shift;
    my $dbh = DB_File::connect();
    $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq{ SELECT name,content FROM page_vars WHERE
+ type = ? });
    $sth->execute($type);
    while ( my ($db_name,$db_content) = $sth->fetchrow_hashref() ) {
        ${$db_name} = $db_content;
    }
    $sth->finish();
    return 1;
[download]

Would that work? I don't think it would, but I have not tried it. Do you know off hand if it would work?

If not I suppose I could put them in a hash or array:

    my $type = shift;
    my $dbh = DB_File::connect();
    $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq{ SELECT name,content FROM page_vars WHERE
+ type = ? });
    $sth->execute($type);
    my %vars;
    while (my ($db_name,$db_content) = $sth->fetchrow_hashref()) {
        $vars{$db_name} = $db_content;
    }
    $sth->finish();
    return(%vars);
[download]

Then I could just have each variable instead of being called by the name be called by a hash:
instead of doing: $default_font_family = ... do this: %vars = get_page_content("some_type");
Then %vars would contain all the variables so I could print them by doing:
$vars{default_font_family}
The only bad thing about using the hash, is that I have already done a lot of work, where I don't do that, so I'd have to put a whole lot of time into search and replace :o)

Anyways, did I understand it the way you meant it?

Thank you much, as usual!
Richard

One quick question...

What did you mean by this:

>you simple add a record in the the "other" table
>(the one you added "type" to)



What is "other"? Is that a "type"?

thx,
Richard