Re: Is relational theory irrelevant?

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:bpe6mq$1n9m$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:ToednURmpdK7Dyei4p2dnA_at_golden.net...
> > > Interesting. I didn't intend to allege that side-effects are bad. They
> > > are a reminder that SQL has to deal with the real world.
> >
> > Side-effects are bad. I suggest your example was also bad. Sending
emails
> is
> > not data management. Recording the emails sent is data management. A
> > database management system has a role and a function. Sending emails is
> not
> > its function.
>
> No, but if you want to get rid of logical transactions, then sending
emails
> is and example of an activity that needs to hook into the physical layer
of
> the database, which would have the consequence of users of the logical
> database experiencing that the DBMS does indeed send emails. :-)

Your assertion seems non-sequitur to me. Can you explain why you think this requirement exists and is caused as asserted above? Received on Wed Nov 19 2003 - 00:23:05 CET