Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects
Date: 14 Apr 2005 06:20:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1113484841.513479.251250_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Frank_Hamersley wrote:
> Chalk my vote alongside Kenneths! When you consider temporal
aspects then
> "Extended" does indeed become data if the DBMS does not retain
temporally
> appropriate values for the data and the function (business rule) that
can be
> reliably presented when required by all and sundry.
Temporal aspects of data are important, no? Then why are such treated differently than "non-temporal" data?
> Furthermore the practical considerations of "caching" the results of
complex
> business rules so a simpler select type of operation can be
performed,
Derived values require no special syntax - to the user (even application developer), the derived values should look like any other.
> whilst presenting a minor challenge to architects, far outweighs the
cost of
> slavish adherance to theory.
If you think "theory" is somehow inhibiting any of the above, you're wrong - in fact, those you'd probably poo-poo (Date and Pascal, to name to) repeatedly state how much more DBMS vendors could and should do to make the lives of developers and users easier. Instead, the DBMS industry spews products that make it only slightly easier than before for its customers to do what the vendor should be offering as part of the engine.
- erk