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

On Wed, 19 May 2004 08:41:45 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>> A truly RDBMS would be a lot better.
>
>Well where is it?

I hope it is in the near future.

>> Most of the everyday problems of
>> the database programmers are due to the flaws of the current DBMSs.
>
>Not if you program in SQL from within the RDBMS.

You suffer the problems specially if you program in SQL from within the SQL DBMS.

See Date's writings about the SQL flaws.

>Well, that may certainly be true, but does not relate
>to the applicability, or in this instance, the ineffectiveness
>of the current RM to address this (object) data.

The RM supports objects. See The Third Manifesto.

>> The key elements are ignorance and the flaws of SQL DBMS's
>
>Either way, application servers are (usually) a step backwards.

Agreed. They are network DBMS's without an storage engine.

>My focus is building suites of application system components
>as SQL stored procedures within the (R)DBMS to the extent
>that there exists zero components external to the (R)DBMS.

And what is the problem with The Relational Model?

>The modern (R)DBMS environment is capable of
>"internalising" the entire applications environment.

And the future TRDBMS's will do it a lot better.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Wed May 19 2004 - 13:14:02 CEST