Re: RM's Canonical database
From: AndrewMackDonna <newsamd_at_amc.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:01:49 +0100
Message-ID: <e8bpj6$rc6$3_at_news.freedom2surf.net>
>
> You are correct that the fact that one should put business rules in
> the dbms in not a consequence of the fact that one can put
> business rules in the dbms.
>
>
>
> But then you lose the centralization.
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:01:49 +0100
Message-ID: <e8bpj6$rc6$3_at_news.freedom2surf.net>
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 - 21:01:49 CEST