Re: OO versus RDB
From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:10:01 -0400
Message-Id: <n8bln3-d4s.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
>
> Reading the above, a lightbulb went off for me. Now I see where
> you're coming from: you are optimizing your code for following
> the latest trends in technology. Buzzword compliance management,
> so to speak. If you're careful not to use anything of the systems
> you build software on, you can swap those systems out for new,
> more popular ones quite easily.
>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:10:01 -0400
Message-Id: <n8bln3-d4s.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Marshall wrote:
>> >> The point is that the application problem solution does not care how the >> data is stored. Nor should it be affected by any changes to the data >> storage that do not effect its semantics. In half a century in this >> business I've observed the introduction of five major paradigms for >> persistence. I would not bet against yet another appearing. >> [...] >> I don't care what storage paradigm is used or what access mechanisms one >> uses to access the data store. The point is that, whatever they are, >> they should be isolated from the problem solution so that they are >> completely transparent to the problem solution.
>
> Reading the above, a lightbulb went off for me. Now I see where
> you're coming from: you are optimizing your code for following
> the latest trends in technology. Buzzword compliance management,
> so to speak. If you're careful not to use anything of the systems
> you build software on, you can swap those systems out for new,
> more popular ones quite easily.
>
LOL! Somebody I once worked for commented, "All of our systems are fully buzzword compatible".
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Sun Jul 02 2006 - 19:10:01 CEST