Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: 19 Jun 2004 04:40:34 -0700
Message-ID: <c0e3f26e.0406190340.5b83be26_at_posting.google.com>
"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3pkqxQDJOy0AFw$q_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
> In message <wekzc.25516$Dh6.9215_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun
> <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> writes
> >"Bill H" <wphaskett_at_THISISMUNGEDatt.net> wrote in message
> >news:b6tyc.71433$3x.21040_at_attbi_s54...
> >
> >This is, more than anything, the philosophical divide between relational and
> >Pick folks. The more rules, the more they should be kept OUT of the
> >application code. "Application" means just that: a judicious application. Of
> >what? Rules. Application != definition, just as implementation !=
> >specification.
>
> Actually, as a Pickie, I'm very much inclined to agree. Rules should sit
> BETWEEN the application and the data store. So no, I don't quite agree
> with the relational approach, but I think the Pick approach is lacking
> here.
Perhaps you agree more than you realise, since a DBMS is a database MANAGEMENT system, not just a data STORE. The DBMS sits between the application and the dumb data store, which is the file system. That's why the rules belong in the DBMS. Received on Sat Jun 19 2004 - 13:40:34 CEST