Re: Ah, but who has better parties?

"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:<l3Moc.36609$TT.29378_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

<snip>

> You may as well, because neither party, unless they take on board
> both the database theory and the (database + application) theory,
> [which is the missing element from Date et al] will ever present a
> complete, consistent and maximally efficient account of that business.
>

I'm intrigued now. If we accept the position that logic is embedded in the database server, by dint of proper constraint management and a proper implementation of domains, how much is actually left for the application side of things to do, beyond presentation ? Presumably collection of parameters and issuing an appropriate database update statement ?

> Businesses require education.
> So do the so-called academics.
>

Now this is interesting. I've recently opted to give up on my SIGMOD membership because of the lack of debate on core issues - that is, when is anyone actually going to take implementing the relational model seriously, rather than paying lip service to it ? The "academics" seem to be stuck in an XML fad at the moment.

> Pete Brown
> Falls Creek
> Oz

Cheers !

• Tony

(At the relational party, but wishing things would, you know, lighten up a bit. All this politics and religion getting bandied about. So far as I know, database theories haven't killed anyone yet.) Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 02:38:13 CEST