Persistent tables: bug or feature?

[karakas]

A table is a stereotyped class - a class of (stereo)type "table". So far so good. But while I understand that the "persistent" check box does make sense for a general class, I am asking myself what the meaning of a "persistent" table might be.

I thought all tables are persistent by definition...

The "persistent" check box is available to user input (i.e. it can be checked or unchecked) for tables. Is it a bug - or is it a feature I am missing?

[Oscar]

A table can also be a temp-table (or auxiliary table).

Created 'on the fly', used and then destroyed.

HTH
Oscar

[thomaskilian]

In ROSE they used a persistence tag in classes to determine whether to build a table out of it or not. The table itself did not have such a tag.

[karakas]

A table can also be a temp-table (or auxiliary table).

Created 'on the fly', used and then destroyed.

This comes quite close to my intuitive idea of a view.

Anyway, does this mean I have to check that checkbox on all my "normal" tables? Wouldn't it be easier to have a checkbox "non-persistent", to be checked only on those rare "on-the-fly" tables?

I can't get rid of the idea that this checkbox was just "forgotten" when the EA team modelled tables as stereotyped classes - they just reused the class dialogs for the tables and forgot to disable the "persistent" checkbox.

I can't prove it - but I "smell" it.