Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: alfredo@ncs.es (Alfredo Novoa) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: OOP - a question about database access Date: 6 Nov 2003 03:51:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <3FA3DEFB.3000502@verizon.net> <3FA6C49F.2020404@verizon.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.58.0.107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068119501 6372 127.0.0.1 (6 Nov 2003 11:51:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.object:132063 comp.databases.theory:22456 "Bob Badour" wrote in message news:... >> I was asking for an example of application that does not present, >> communicate or acquire data. >Any triggered procedure. Month end. End of quarter. Year-end. But IMO it would be better to extend the DBMS operators set instead of creating a new application for calculating the Month end. > I doubt Dijkstra would consider a division between applications and data > management appropriate. IMO it is not a division between applications and data management, but data should be managed by specialized systems called DBMS. In the OO jargon, a DBMS is a very good example of reusable component. > > Other datawarehouses hold the combined data of several "operational" > > databases. > > Other views. Then we could consider any enterprise database as a view of the world wide database :) > > Because all the application development tools I know have a primitive > > computational model. > > I suggest you need to know a better vision of the future. I think that the future is for D like languages, but probably it will be in a distant future. But I was talking about the present. > > > That will largely depend on what is available for declaration. > > > > But it never will be enough. > > Why? Because users always will find something you can not declare in your system. You will always need the possibility of creating new operators using procedural code. > > Although the forms designed by draging and dropping can be easily > > translated to declarative propositions. > > Doesn't this contradict the former statement? No because you can not create any user interface only dragging and dropping controls, you also could need to implement some presentation rules with procedural code. Regards Alfredo