Re: Multiple specification of constraints

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:ZNU%b.135759$jk2.560043_at_attbi_s53...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:btKdnadUYoVY-6LdRVn-gQ_at_golden.net...
> > >
> > > I think the idea of having it be possible to automatically replicate
the
> > > integrity checks on the client (or on whatever earlier tier) is the
better
> > > approach to pursue.
> >
> > Absolutely, and this argues strongly for a formal representation of
> > integrity constraints that multiple machines can interpret consistently
and
> > correctly.
>
> Yes, exactly my thought. For example, there should be some way to
> have a C++ program "download" constraint logic from the dbms and
> verify it against local data. This might mean a code generation step,
> or it might mean an embedded interpreter, although given how much
> C++ depends on ahead-of-time compilation there might be no point
> to the interpreter. For more dynamic languages, the interpreter might
> even be the language's native interpreter.

Perhaps one day we'll have a standard system catalog to augment our real RDBMSs... that will help somewhat, though a standard relational language is still required. But I'd wager that it would be far easier to translate relational language X into relational language Y than to move between non-declarative ones... Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 17:33:42 CET