Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:51:19 -0400
Message-Id: <74f5j2-fjc.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Alexandr Savinov wrote:
>> No matter what you call it, the customer is paying for a system that >> keeps >> accurate records. That means the database is the first and final >> concern. In a database app, there is no theory of code that trumps the >> needs of the >> database. Rather, as "form follows function", the code theory needs to >> come after the database theory.
>
> The customers pay for two things:
> 1. keeping records, and
> 2. manipulating records
> So these two sides cannot be separated. We need not only to store our
> files but also move them between folders and update the records. So code
> and data exist together and we hardly can concluse that database is the
> final concern. I would say that they have equal rights.
This is an accurate clarification, but it bolsters my position that the One True Dictionary must govern all actions.
BTW, I intended for the term "keeping records" to include the entire body of activity surrounding the storing and retrieving of data, but I can see how that may not have been clear.
>
> But finally customers pay for a system that works but it is not an easy
> task nowdays. One of the problems is that we are not able to solve tasks
> which were primitive yesterday. We cannot say where our data is stored
> and where is the database located. One and the same data is everywhere:
> it is in cache (many levels), it is on web pages, it on disk and on
> tape, it is in an application sever, it is in memory, it is in
> processor, it is in the network, it is on paper etc. The code takes also
> very different forms: web page scripts, intermediate languages (Java
> byte code, .Net), native code, database languages (PL/SQL etc.), EJBs
> etc. Note that it is one and the same system with one and the same data
> and one and the same code. To make such a system work is not a simple
> task and it is where the existing technologies do not help. So they
> exists certain necessaty for something new.
>
> alex
> http://conceptoriented.com
I would not know where to begin disagreeing with all of this. At the risk of giving insult I would say you are obfuscating without aim or purpose. To say things are complicated is to state the obvious. While it is sometimes necessary to state the obvious, doing so in a focused discussion as a general statement meant to refute very precise context-based arguments is very weak. In face-to-face communication this practice leads to very long unproductive meetings :)
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Fri Apr 15 2005 - 20:51:19 CEST