Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:22:01 GMT
Message-ID: <ZFmsc.19998$952.13933_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>
"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:UXvrc.1683$L.1212_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bYnrc.19598$D33.8008_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> 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.
I agree, though using some fairly simple techniques definitions can exist in one place, and be propagated to others. If an "object" could be defined in E2, for example, and automatically generate the appropriate changes on E3, how would that fit?
I'm also curious why you suggest moving objects from E3 to E2 for reasons of efficiency and duplicate elimination, but don't include E1 in the mix. Certainly services in E1 are relevant to applications?
- Eric