Re: Why all the max length constraints?
Date: 27 May 2006 18:47:44 -0700
Message-ID: <1148780864.560153.47550_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Marshall wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > [why all the length constraints?]
>
> You asked a very general question, so I'm going to respond in
> very general terms.
>
> Length constraints are a physical reality.
Yes, the computer needs to allocate space somehow. Understood. I
don't tell it when I start a new Word document how much space to use,
but I might get a message that I'm out of space and not be able to save
it.
> and it can only take so much data before choking.
Thanks, Marshall, but with explanations like that I'm worried that you
are buying into the Fox news spin on my intellect too ;-)
> times when software is buggy and will write data forever, filling
> up your disk or dbms or whatever.
Most assuredly
> It is best if the entire system
> not die under those circumstances.
I knew I would learn something new from you ;-)
> such bad behavior is deliberate, as in denial-of-service attacks.)
> So no matter how it appears, there are real limits somewhere.
Yes.
> Note that Java strings are conventionally referred to as variable
> length, but they are in fact a maximum of 2^31 characters long.
I am only referring to logical variaibility, so I think of Java String
as logically having a similar spec to a Pick attribute. Are you
wishing that you had to put a max length on every declaration of a
variable of type String? I'm not.
> Realistically, if you have a field for state/province, and someone
> enters 6 megabytes of character data, something has gone wrong
> somewhere.
Yes, and there should be no data entry widget that permits entry of more than 2 characters for a state code, for example, more likely selecting from a drop-down.
> Better to trap it around character 255 than to
> let it just run along sucking up resources.
I do want the software product (as a whole) to limit anything which has a conceptual limit.
> There is nothing specific to RM here.
In the other response I gave, I asked questions related to how those dbms systems where attributes have variable length seem to also be the ones that do not have the unordered requirement of the RM. Also, might set processing have anything to do with it? In other words, are you sure that it is just a coincidence that all existing implementations (flawed though they may be) of the RM work extensively with length constraints while many of those (not all, for sure) that do not implement the RM (whether OO, XML, MV, MUMPS?...) are more inclined toward variable lengths.
--dawn Received on Sun May 28 2006 - 03:47:44 CEST