Re: New trend in modern IT consultancy - use your relational database as flat file

On 18 May 2003 17:56:35 -0700, wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote:

[Accidentally sent this by email. Mea culpa.]

>Mike Sherrill <MSherrill_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<vpoacv40c8spahe9pm7i6chkd1jc9kt08n_at_4ax.com>...
>
>> A SQL database that stays close to the relational model does let you
>> build relationships as they're needed. But letting you (a DBA) build
>> relationships /as needed/ isn't quite the same thing as letting an OO
>> programmer build relationships /on the fly/.
>
>Woooa! Stop right there. A DBA does NOT have a need
>to build relationships at all. It's the designer's/analyst's
>job to do that! I don't buy the story of the ubber-DBA that
>knows all and does everything. We have to start moving away
>from that idea.

You misunderstood me. I was using "DBA" in the casual, common sense, meaning "people who work on the database but don't do data entry". But I'll try to use "database designer" in the rest of my replies to this thread.

>This is completely wrong if it comes from a OO group,
>for example.

It's completely wrong regardless of where it comes from.

>What they should be building is a OO model with MOL this
>struct appearance (forget the exact syntax):

They should be building better relationships with the database designers. <g>

>This is where the OO mob should STOP.

IME, programmers (OO or no) don't stop when they need to do something they can't do immediately. If a programmer needs to do "wibble", and can't find a "wibble" library in 30 seconds, the programmer will start writing a "wibble" library. The programmer won't ask the database designer for a view. (Again, IME.)

>But there is NO WAY the OO designer/programmer should be
>getting to the data in a format similar to what you described.

No argument from me.

>It's totally redundant for them and serves no purpose
>whatsoever other than increase the amount of "fluff"
>in each net trip to the db server.

I have to think it does serve some purpose, because it happens so often. But I don't know what the purpose might be. (It probably varies from person to person, and it's almost certainly more psychological than technical.)

>Note for example that for EVERY row the flight number is
>being sent. What the heck for? To-be-sure-to-be-sure?

You're preaching to the choir.

>This is a very good example why there is so much trouble
>between OO and relational: neither camp is doing an accurate
>job of stating their needs and what they want and can do.
>Result: misunderstandings galore.

Again, my intuition tells me there's more to it than that, but I don't know exactly /what/ more.

>Exactly. But where does the problem lie in this case?
>Data model? I think so.

I like "conceptual model". It's more neutral. But I agree with you.

>They think that way because we DB designers and coders are
>doing an absolutely miserable job of telling them what's available
>and can be done for them! Sorry to say this, but it's true.

I'm sure it is true in some cases. But there are plenty of cases where it's /not/ true. Read comp.databases.theory for a month or two.

-- 
Mike Sherrill
Information Management Systems