Re: Concurrency in an RDB

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:30:10 GMT
Message-ID: <6JCgh.33441$cz.498163@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> "David" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 

>>As it turns out I've made significant progress in the OT approach - and
>>I believe the case is compelling. My solution is fast, simple, very
>>efficient and highly scalable. I haven't published any of these
>>results and I don't mind (nor am I surprised) if you don't believe me.
>>
>>If you think the prior work proves me wrong then please summarise the
>>argument or cite the relevant material. Don't be like Bob and
>>reference an entire book. That is rude and makes me wonder whether Bob
>>actually has a specific argument at all.

Is that a book?

http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=P115

I recall it was an abstract with a link to a paper. The server seems down at the moment so I cannot verify.

I thought I was rude when I outright called David and Dan idiots. Since when did folks decide it is rude to point to a 10 year old research paper where some really top minds already demonstrated the limitations of somebody's 'new' idea. Isn't that what we have been calling the 'polite' way to burst the bubble all these years? When did it become more rude than calling someone an idiot?!?

BTW, for any who are interested in my not so humble opinion:

Tanj Bennett <- polymath
Dennis Shasha <- polymath

I know less about the others, but if not Jim Gray, who is the authoritative voice on transactions?

The mind boggles....

>      The burden of proof is on you.  You are making the assertion that
> your system is better.  Prove it.  Why should we do your work for you?
> 
> [snip]

Hear! Hear! Received on Fri Dec 15 2006 - 13:30:10 CST