Re: The good, the bad, and the ugly

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:4157bb7d$0$48933$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Now and later. IMO sharing and complexity are the mean reason to
> put data *as* *such* under management.

Agreed.

> Migrating it later is messy,
> and very expensive, mostly boils down to re-archituring the lot.

You migrate when you have to. Sorta like mass migrations of people.

> So yes, if you are sure you are *not* going to share data later on,
> and if it (in this case the inter-document structure) is simple,
> skip the management.
>

I think I agree with you in concept, but I would phrase it differently: Manage the data in the simplest possible way.

Making a decision to put data in an XML file rather than a DBMS is a decision. That's management of the asset (data).

Making the decision unconsciously, and then later saying, "gee, I never thought of that" is not management.

I've travelled both of those roads during my career. You can't think of everything, and you can't manage everything. Received on Mon Sep 27 2004 - 13:14:27 CEST