Re: foundations of relational theory?

"byrmol" <member27348_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:3569855.1068161778_at_dbforums.com...
>
> > Please read original quote. you reference "set theory?" there clearly.
>
> > And the implication is that relational db theory links to that, and
> > has
>
> > been unchallenged etc.
> You are the one that is making the implication, not me. The point I was
> trying to make is that if you try and dismantle relational theory, you
> will inevitably have to do the same for set theory and predicate logic.
> I am sorry if that was so hard to understand.
>
> > The piggishness of the middle tier is just an example of bad
> > implementation and has no relevance.

> How can you possible know this?

You seem to be replying to my message below, I'm not sure what is the source of this exchange above: I didn't write it.

> > Which naturally leads to the conclusion "There must be something wrong
> > with..... the database!"
>
> How can you possible know this?

I posted a link to Stonebraker's midletier phylosophy earlier. It should be clear, that I can't possbly be serious in the quoted comment.

> > That is not really a problem. The problem to focus on is "Now,
> > how do I
> > abstract the database away and write a persistence layer".
>
> The database should be the only the persistence layer. But you are
> probably getting paid by the hour and duplication of code gives you a
> nicer house....

Likewise. Received on Fri Nov 07 2003 - 02:34:51 CET