Re: foundations of relational theory?

"Patrick Payne" <patrickpayne_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b6da8ff0.0311051706.3e048add_at_posting.google.com...
> Well put Chandru. My feeling here is that SQL was originally designed
> as a Data Extraction Tool (i.e. query language). SQL was really
> nothing more than a 'APPLICATION' that then touched the database. SQL
> was then extended to do updates and was extended to be a end-all data
> access application. The nice thing about this model was that it
> forced all data access to go thru this one app. Any of us that write
> application understand the benefits of using a standardized module for
> data access/update.
>
> Data integrity then became an issue. Data contraints were added, then
> triggers, etc. But I believe we (the industry) has finally realized
> that this was the wrong direction and has moved towards the 3-tier
> data model. In this model we do not allow the end user direct access
> to the database. Instead we develop business modules that the user
> calls. This model has the advantages of Forced Data Integrity, the
> end user does not have to know our data model. Essentially it creates
> customized mini-sql engines for our data objects. As I study this
> model more and play with it with Microsoft .net, Disconnected
> datasets, and XML data sets, I really feel this is the future.

And who are you to tell us the future? For starters, look at Michael Stonebraker's video lecture at
http://murl.microsoft.com/ContentMapDetails.asp?SeriesID=27 When dumb practitioners learn that client-server paradigm is still used in 3-tier implementations? Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 02:30:35 CET