Re: The IDS, the EDS and the DBMS

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:413a2b88$0$25965$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Laconic2 wrote:
> > mAsterdam wrote:
> L:>
> >>>It's hacking into information that was not written to be shared.
> >>
> >>This is a very important observation, IMHO.
> >>It looks like it is shared data (because of the
> >>tools used) but it's not.
> >
> > Yes. In particular, wouldn't it be great is there were a tool called
a
> > PEDMS (persistent encapsulated data management system) that would be a
> > DIFFERENT TOOL than a DBMS? Maybe it wouldn't even need an SQL port or
a
> > built in data dictionary. Should be lots cheaper than a DBMS.
>
> If the sharing requirement is really dropped, any
> filesystem will do, no?

Not necessarily. Just because there is no goal of including metadata or the subject of structured queries
doesn't mean that EDS builders might not want to provide concurrency control, and shared access, among many objects of the same class. I'll leave the specifics up to would be EDS builders.

>
> In my experience many misunderstandings rise from the
> wrong expectation that by simply using a RDBMS as
> a persistence-provider (yes, "CRUD-service") by some
> magic the stored data instantly becomes shareable.
>

I agree with you, in part. I don't think any one person thinks of the DBMS as a CRUD-server and also the data in it as sharable. What happens is that an organization thinks with more than one brain. The applications programmers know the database is merely serving up CRUD, but the IT manager thinks, RDBMS+SQL+Crystal Reports=Business Information.

Neither one of those two bothers to talk to the other one. The conflict doesn't become apparent until some poor junior report writer gets tagged with the task of turning CRUD into gold. Received on Sun Sep 05 2004 - 01:25:46 CEST