Re: Databases as objects

From: Thomas Gagne <tgagne_at_wide-open-west.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:38:00 -0500
Message-ID: <zv-dnRS-55uNgAnYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d_at_wideopenwest.com>


kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com wrote:
> <snip great example>

Congratulations on that performance improvement. That is an excellent example of cohesiveness--individual responsibility--something doing for itself what other can not do (as well).

We have no disagreement and our approaches are not in conflict with each other. Our system has similar jobs that run entirely inside the database. We still create procedures for them, but they are not called by application programs. They are relatively large SET processing tasks that can only efficiently be executed on sets. They are not transactions. They have nothing to do with OLTP.

 From what you described, your job didn't really have anything to do with an application trying to hydrate or dehydrate objects from the the DB, or execute transactions either (something that must be done 1000/minute), or require an external stimulus, like a customer, to initiate it.

I understand what you are saying. I've done it before and I do it still. But I'm still having a communication problem in c.d.t. I actually think its a form of stereotyping: no matter what I say, because it uses the term "object" prejudice thinks I want to replace set processing with Java then take your little sister to the wrong side of the tracks.

I'm going to have to work on some examples so c.d.t. can see that what I propose to do doesn't require OOPLs or abandoning set processing.

-- 
Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> 
to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.
Received on Thu Dec 28 2006 - 20:38:00 CET

Original text of this message