Re: Codde's Rules and Oracle

Chuck,

Yeah, I enjoy complexity and challenging work as much as most DBA's. I spent a couple of weeks fooling around with 'instead of' triggers last year at the behest of the Chief Data Architect ( at Enron, guess it won't do them much good now ) and I didn't like them too much.

This was with strictly procedural code, and my take on them was that they would present maintenance problems. As I recall there was also a good possibility of race conditions on updates if not very careful.

If they were used on Objects with OOP code, they would probably be much more manageable. I don't really know enough about the object capabilities of Oracle to say for sure though.

Jared

On Saturday 19 January 2002 15:50, Charles Wolfe wrote:
> Certainly, much of the 'under the hood' work needed to make the delivered
> database simple for end users to manipulate is very complicated. But, Codd
> merely postulated standards for the 'ideal' relational database, he didn't
> prescribe the means for achieving those standards, or that the standards be
> easy to achieve, only that it be simple for end users to obtain the data
> they need.
>
> Anyway, if it were too simple, the work wouldn't be terribly interesting,
> and DBAs would be little more than glorified system administrators. :)
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 4:40 PM
>
> > I admit to being on shaky ground on rule 11. See my
> > comments in another post.
> >
> > You *could* argue that 'instead of' triggers allow compliance
> > with rule 7. Have you tried to implement it? It gets too complicated
> > too fast.
> >
> > This may be a case of being in compliance with the letter of the
> > law while violating its spirit.
> >
> > Jared
> >
> > On Saturday 19 January 2002 12:10, Charles Wolfe wrote:
> > > One could argue that Oracle is compliant with rule 11. A distributed
> > > Oracle database can be constructed in such a way as to be transparent
> > > to end users.
> > >
> > > With the addition of 'INSTEAD OF' triggers in 8i, one could argue that
> > > Oracle is also compliant with rule 7.
> > >
> > > Just my $.02.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 12:45 AM
> > >
> > > > Here's a URL for a list of the rules:
> > > >
> > > > http://luna.pepperdine.edu/~ckettemb/class/Codd12R.html
> > > >
> > > > After taking a quick glance at the rules, I think that Oracle fails
> > > > on 7 and 11, probably others, but those were the ones that stood
> > > > out without too much pondering. :)
> > > >
> > > > Jared
> > > >
> > > > On Friday 18 January 2002 09:51, Jared.Still_at_radisys.com wrote:
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, I don't believe that there is a database in existence that
> > > > > does conform to all 12 rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll let someone else answer the hard part, just not enough time
> > > > > for
> > >
> > > that.
> > >
> > > > > Jared
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Vikas S" <vikas_s40_at_hotmail.com>
> > > > > Sent by: root_at_fatcity.com
> > > > > 01/18/02 02:30 AM
> > > > > Please respond to ORACLE-L
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> > >
> > > <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> > >
> > > > > cc:
> > > > > Subject: Codde's Rules and Oracle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Oracle confirm to all 12 Codde's Rules. Can
> > > > > anyone point out the Rules violated by each version (6/7/8/9) of
> > > > > Oracle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Vikas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
>
> http://messenger.msn.com
>
> > > > --
> > > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> > > > --
> > > > Author: Jared Still
> > > > INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.com
> > > >
> > > > Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> > > > San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing
> > > > Lists
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to:
> > > > ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the
> > > > message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> > > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> > > > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
> >
> > --
> > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> > --
> > Author: Jared Still
> > INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.com
> >
> > Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> > San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> > to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jared Still
  INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).