Re: object naming conventions

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3f040e11$0$5430$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Brian Peasland" <oracle_dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message
> news:3F02D7B1.3B4261C9_at_remove_spam.peasland.com...
>
> > Yeah, worked with ADABAS. Not a big fan of it. There's a reason why
> > heirarchical databases are no longer in fashion. And is anyone else
> > bothered by this trend of XML databases that smack of the old
> > heirarchical databases? Didn't we learn our lessons????
>
> That's what we get for letting IBM and their mainframes
> survive this long. They'll do anything and push ANYTHING
> to get back into the closed, proprietary hierarchical db
> world. That's how they survive in the long run. XML is just
> made in heaven for the mainframe mentality.
>
> Have a look in dbazine at Fabian's latest rant. He
> knows *exactly* what's going on in this industry with
> XML. It's just another layer of buzzword marketing crap.

While I agree with most of his rant (certainly his opinion of SQL), I disagree with the implication (or did he say it explicitly?) that just because commercial products are used, logic is thrown out the window. He seems to ignore the fact that much "business logic" has resulted from the empirical growth of business in a non-relational manner, and is in fact difficult to express relationally. I find it very difficult to comprehend the idea of convincing people to discard thousands of calendar years of development in favor of a provably correct theory.

>
> But it will be promoted as the *silver bullet*. Until
> some bank loses a billion$ for doing business in
> unencrypted SOAP+XML. Then the fan will be turning...

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.manchester-minis.cwc.net/Events/IJ2000/Mini-Italian-Job.jpg