Re: Is a RDBMS needed?

From: Wayne Smith <>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:19:08 -0400
Message-ID: <>

Good new things are built every day. For every good new thing there are probably many not so good things built. For every ga-zillion good things, something turns out great and right for its time.

Since it appears to me that all Learning Management Systems suck in substantial ways, maybe this one has a chance? Time will tell.

Cheers, Wayne

Google before you ask. (R. Theriault)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Hans Forbrich <>wrote:

> Any technology is potentially useful under certain circumstances.
> I'd be asking the bigger 'how does this fit in our organization' questions:
> - do we have the skills to support it? How 'spensive to get 'em?
> - what is the backup/recovery strategy and has it been proven?
> - what are the manageability capabilities?
> - how scalable is it? (proof needed, not just a bit-head's assertion)
> - are there references?
> Sounds like the management would deem this to be a mission critical app.
> So I'd like some proof that the content management is robust.
> As a fellow dinosaur, I think you are correct in raising the questions.
> Get someone with experience in the technology to provide trustworthy
> answers. ;-)
> /Hans
> On 09/06/2011 9:22 AM, Blake Wilson wrote:
> Here at the University of Western Ontario we are looking at replacing our
> current Learning Management System. The current choices seem to be similar
> in technology and infrastructure - web tier, load balancer, application
> tier, back end RDBMS and some sort of content management system for the
> course content.
> However, the next release of one of our options will not have a RDBMS in
> the solution. It will be replaced by Apache Jackrabbit. The new system will
> have everything** treated as content, including grades, test questions and
> answers, discussion threads, syllabi, personal profiles, chat messages, and
> so on.
> This seems like quite a departure from normal RDBMS based solutions. Is
> this a good idea? Am I being a dinosaur by thinking that this is not a good
> idea? Do I need to keep up with the times? Is this the future of databases?
> This really looks to me like a return to design of 20 years ago.
> Thanks,
> Blake Wilson

Received on Thu Jun 09 2011 - 14:19:08 CDT

Original text of this message