Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:56:57 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>Machines using the basic "un-blessed" principles of the RM
>have only been around for 25 years. These are good enough
>for me, because they (especially the more recent ones) do
>actually incorporate *much* of the basics of the RM.

A truly RDBMS would be a lot better. Most of the everyday problems of the database programmers are due to the flaws of the current DBMSs.

>> >, there has been an effective "migration" of
>> >intelligence (code) from E3 to E2.
>>
>> But not enough,
>
>Then you do agree that there exists (object) "data"
>within the SQL DBMS's that is unable to be referenced
>by the relational model of "data"?

No, I mean that most people does not know how to take advantage on the few that SQL DBMS's offer.

> and in the last years we are seeing a regression. A
>> migration of business logic from SQL DBMS's to the crappy "Application
>> Servers".
>
>What do you think are the major elements behind this
>migration to these (I actually agree with your here) crappy
>"Apps boxes"? I used to suspect they were "caused by bad
>apps".

The key elements are ignorance and the flaws of SQL DBMS's

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Tue May 18 2004 - 14:32:47 CEST