Re: Ah, but who has better parties?

"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:bcb8c360.0405131638.57d7da17_at_posting.google.com...
> "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 ?

IMO, after some decades in the business, nothing (that cannot be resolved), except possibly core-level analytical work, such as sorting or filtering or exporting the returned data set.

The only thing that need remain external to RDBMS software is a standard simple generic user interface, imbued with some degree of analytical capabilites, and a method of coordination between it (ie: the user) and RDBMS stored procedures.

> > 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.

Yes, there have been a whole succession of these fads over the last 25 years.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 10:07:09 CEST