Re: Xquery might have some things right

"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?

Thanks. --dawn Received on Tue Mar 23 2004 - 01:45:56 CET