dwolt_at_iserv.net (Dawn M. Wolthuis) wrote in message news:<6db906b2.0403221645.1141ecf6_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9JC7c.62219$lV6.25494_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
> > news:1079920954.616425_at_news-1.nethere.net...
> > > "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
> <news:3z32c.18$zW4.150_at_news.oracle.com>...
> > >
> > > > Imagine RemoteSystemA owner provided you with EDI, XML or others
> ShmackML
> > > > instead of remote database connection. Suppose all you need to know is
> how
> > > > many purchase orders did the system processed last month. Does it mean
> you
> > > > have to import *all* the orders to your system first?
> > >
> > > Of course not. The remote system is most likely Object-Oriented, so
> > > you merely navigate, a/k/a chase pointers, to the orders collections,
> > > iterate through each and every order, and maintain a counter. That's
> > > N+K network round trips for N orders, where K is finite but unbounded.
> >
> > How convenient. :-\
>
> What is the theory on which we base "our" disdain for navigation? Is
> the only rationale performance? In other words, if there were a data
> model where the implementation was zippy quick and navigation was a
> strategy for getting there, then is there something else upsetting
> about the navigation approach?
It isn't a theoretical disdain. It is based on the fact that with
navigation you have to specify how to get the result, not just what
result you want. One of the strange things about many programmers is
that they don't trust computers, and always prefer to do all the work
themselves.
Received on Tue Mar 23 2004 - 04:01:40 CST
