Re: RM's Canonical database

From: paul c <>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:18:00 GMT
Message-ID: <ITzpg.114138$IK3.35214_at_pd7tw1no>

Marshall wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:

>> "mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:44a63f88$0$31653$
>>> 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.
> --otherwise--
> 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

Original text of this message