Re: RM's Canonical database (was: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count)

Ron Jeffries wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2006 02:13:09 -0700, "Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The point it would or would not work for me is not that important. I
> >am trying to understand you.
> >
> >*business object* are piece of software (right?) and *associated
> >rules*. How do you associate rules with software?. Could you define
> >such association.
>
> Do you understand how to put business rules into a DBMS, or not? If so, then
> please explain to me how you know that but don't know how to associate rules
> with software.
Yes.
You are the one who brougth the argument about associating rules with software in middle tier. I just ask you to expand on it. But as you ask a question in return, I will clarify later down.

> If you don't understand how to put business rules into a DBMS, let me know and
> that will help me answer your question.
No but thanks. I appreciate the intent. I try to understand what is your conception of how business rules should be associated to software.  In what purpose? According to what principle? Would you care to provide logical and abstract concepts that regulate such relationship (please no technology or implementational explanations)...

> Thanks,
>
> --
> Ron Jeffries
> www.XProgramming.com
> I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.
Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 09:53:43 CEST