Re: Interested in a moderated theory forum?

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message <news:buk22d$1t6o$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...

> "Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:buhi7n$hm1gm$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > Those problems that a new theory of transactions (or theory of databases
> > without transactions), have not even been systematically identified and
> > specified, much less address by that thread.
>
> Well from my side of the fence, I got some reasonable criticism, none of
> which shot down (for me at the least) the core of my idea - that being that
> transactions are harmful to the (logical) database model.
>
> None of my friendly critics in this group managed to identify systematically
> any 'problems' with a theory of databases without transactions. OK, so I
> was trying to lay the burden of proof on the other side - I see no problem
> in constructing a useful theory without transactions, so those in favour
> tell me why they are necessary. No one could IIRC.

The devil is in the details,

 URL:http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page.cfm/806828

While I can see that multiple assignment may be necessary, it's more difficult to convince myself that it is also sufficient. We may need /both/ transaction and multiple assignment support.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  Auditine Addict <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!