Re: MV counterexample
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 07:39:26 -0500
Message-ID: <c7ana5$tag$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Karel Miklav" <karel_at_inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
news:c7a9eg016dp_at_enews1.newsguy.com...
> Wasn't around lately and I'm a bit surprised by this MV fad, I guess it
> replaced the object one. There must be a good use for every technology
> and I'd really like to see a database with good object mapping to a
> perfect relational engine (if it ain't just a confusion in terms). But.
>
> It must be understood or written in some DB FAQ or something that things
> just don't have structure by themselves (yes, it's the same for the
> circle and the ellipse), it's just the way we see it. An example.
>
> A bank has a very complex price list, items on this list goes into
> thousands. But it's not the volume that is scary, it's the structure.
> Developing an app. around this hairball, I had an adviser who introduced
> me to the way things are. I made my model and a prototype but on first
> meeting realized, that it's just the way he sees it and every department
> has it's own hairy view on the data.
>
> Data is actually just a SET of whatevers, the views could be more or
> less structured. That's it.
Well, it's good to have PROOF like that! But, what if a better metaphor
for data is that is it is a tree?
Cheers! --dawn
Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 14:39:26 CEST