Re: Data Constraints Vs Application Constraints
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.moc>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:52:42 GMT
Message-ID: <KgRXd.625631$Xk.26539_at_pd7tw3no>
>
>
> You're right - that is the most probable reason. But diplomatically,
> there is every reason to take it gently and make sure that it is
> actually incompetence and not something else. Another probable reason
> is called 'ancient history'. Once upon a time, the DBMS did not have
> support for anything other than primary keys, and they've never gone
> back to fix up the design after the DBMS became able to support them.
>
> And, it is better to find that out without calling people incompetent.
> It tends to get their back up without gaining you anything.
>
>
>
> Agreed with the feathers. I'm not sure I'd classify portability as a
> normal reason - many, many shops have no concern about portability at
> all. And when it is a portability issue, it often means they've coded
> to a perceived lowest common denominator functionality.
>
>
>
> You don't have to lie - but it is worth spending time to establish that
> what appears to be the case actually is the case, before you burn your
> bridges.
>
Yes, nothing wrong with what you say, except for LCD and i'm not talking about diodes or displays! They should have bought ISAM (probably could have got one for free).
p Received on Thu Mar 10 2005 - 06:52:42 CET
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:52:42 GMT
Message-ID: <KgRXd.625631$Xk.26539_at_pd7tw3no>
Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:37:16 -0500, Kenneth Downs >> <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote: >> >>> Do you know why they did it that way? >> >> The most probable reason is: incompetence.
>
>
> You're right - that is the most probable reason. But diplomatically,
> there is every reason to take it gently and make sure that it is
> actually incompetence and not something else. Another probable reason
> is called 'ancient history'. Once upon a time, the DBMS did not have
> support for anything other than primary keys, and they've never gone
> back to fix up the design after the DBMS became able to support them.
>
> And, it is better to find that out without calling people incompetent.
> It tends to get their back up without gaining you anything.
>
>>> There was definitely a reason and you don't want to ruffle feathers >>> by criticizing it before you know why it was done. The >>> normal argument is for portability,
>
>
> Agreed with the feathers. I'm not sure I'd classify portability as a
> normal reason - many, many shops have no concern about portability at
> all. And when it is a portability issue, it often means they've coded
> to a perceived lowest common denominator functionality.
>
>> But the honest and professional behavior is to say the truth.
>
>
> You don't have to lie - but it is worth spending time to establish that
> what appears to be the case actually is the case, before you burn your
> bridges.
>
Yes, nothing wrong with what you say, except for LCD and i'm not talking about diodes or displays! They should have bought ISAM (probably could have got one for free).
p Received on Thu Mar 10 2005 - 06:52:42 CET