Re: Terminology question
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:06:55 GMT
Message-ID: <Pz0Lg.8881$9u.122021_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I speculate it could have to do with the fact that typically a dbms
> is accessed over a network, and in TCP terminology, opening
> a socket is called "connecting."
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:06:55 GMT
Message-ID: <Pz0Lg.8881$9u.122021_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
>>There are a number of names that have been used for similar things: >>channels, connections, sessions. For some reason, connect seems to have >>taken hold among database implementations. I find "connecting to a >>database" wrong-minded and borderline anthropomorphizing.
>
> I speculate it could have to do with the fact that typically a dbms
> is accessed over a network, and in TCP terminology, opening
> a socket is called "connecting."
One could also speculate that it was chosen to distinguish the activity from opening a file. Regardless, I think the choice of word was arbitrary, and I don't see any theoretical underpinning to the choice. My guess is different products use different keywords. 'Client-server' was popular when ODBC etc. were created so that might have influenced the choice. Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 23:06:55 CEST