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

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bYnrc.19598$D33.8008_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:EtUqc.49042$TT.40732_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...

...[trim]...

> > As I have
> > outlined, I have constructed an arrangment whereby all of E3
> > has been subsumed in the form of stored procedures, within the
> > E2 environment.
>
> The fact that they're executing in E2 doesn't imply "subsumption." They
are
> still "objects" of a very different sort than those E2 traditionally
> "manages." For instance, those stored procedured could be written in
> arbitrary languages, and executed anywhere. It seems you see their value
in
> their genericity, rather than in where they happen to execute.

I see value in avoiding redundancies. All application code that relates to database I/O that is external to the RDBMS environment requires redundancy of definition of the database schema. This is so because the entire system spans two software environments (E2 and E3).

Current technology looks at this as the status quo. The world is used to defining things in a union and conjunction of two separate software systems. However it is very inefficient.

When things can be defined using one software layer alone, the redefinitions referred to above no longer exist.

...[trim]...

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 01:06:28 CEST