Marshall wrote:
> Ron Jeffries wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 2006 11:02:07 -0700, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [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.
>> Obviously one /can/ put such a rule into the DBMS. It does not follow that one
>> should.
>
> You are correct that the fact that one should put business rules in
> the dbms in not a consequence of the fact that one can put
> business rules in the dbms.
>
>
>> In favor of putting a common rule in the DBMS is that it is centralized. The
>> "Once and Only Once", or "DRY" principle suggests that it should be there.
>>
>> Another possibility for a location for such a rule is in a middle tier, where it
>> can also meet the DRY principle.
>
> But then you lose the centralization.
Not necessarily, its moved thats all. There is still only one instance
of it in the company.
Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 14:01:49 CDT
