Re: RM's Canonical database
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:18:00 GMT
> Michael Gaab wrote:
>> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:44a63f88$0$31653$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl... >>> Robert Martin wrote: >>> >>>> ... business rules don't belong in the database. >>> What, in your opinion, does belong in the database? >>> >> Imagine that your database is used by multiple applications where >> each application has different business rules. IMO, this is one reason >> why one should not include business rules in a db. So the answer to >> your question is *data*.
> [speaking in terms of the enterprise dbms]
> I reject your argument on simple definitional grounds.
> Given a business with a set of applications A and a database
> D managed by a dbms M.
> Consider a given rule R.
> If for all a in A R holds, then R is a business rule, and should be
> managed by M.
> If there exists a in A where R holds, then R is an application rule
> and should be managed by a.
Now along comes app A2 where R also holds. Can A and A2 somehow share R?
I wonder if this definition is incomplete in that it doesn't say what happens with D.
p Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 21:18:00 CEST