Re: Navigation question
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:55:29 GMT
Message-ID: <RP2Gh.4796$PV3.45488_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Walt wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1172877660.688429.210570_at_v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>>
>>>>That is my term. Again, I am still trying to figure what what people
>>>>mean when they indicate that we as a profession have already learned
>>>>that "database navigation" is a bad thing. What navigation is bad,
>>>>what about navigation is bad, and why is it bad. I'm am not
>>>>interested in anything related to physical navigation but to database
>>>>navigation at a logical level (the level where a logical data model
>>>>fits).
>>>
>>>I give up. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>>What type of navigation do you think that paper is arguing against?
>>>It's arguing against "navigation".
>>
>>This is such a circular discussion. I apologize if I am making it
>>such. My original question was whether there really is large data-
>>based software that does not have whatever this navigation is that is
>>pooh-poohed. I think that most here will agree that many database
>>folks speak ill of "navigation." I'm trying to figure out what this
>>navigation is that is so bad because I see navigation, database
>>navigation, all over the place and seems to be a viable design
>>pattern, to be employed as any other design pattern (with due
>>diligence to the quality attributes of the product, peformance,
>>maintainability, etc).
> > Yes, and the original answer (I think from JOG) was that SQL does not do > navigation. > And your reply was that "oh, yes, it does". That's what started the spiral > (not quite a circle). > > I think the paper you quoted, JOG, and myself have roughly the same > understanding of what "navigation" is. If your understanding is different, > I can live with that. But it's up to you to explain the difference between > your understanding and the common understanding. >
>>I quoted one paper that is mentioned in other writings that speaks
>>against navigation but this navigation seems to be conflated, perhaps,
>>or at least aligned with physical navigation. So, I would like an
>>example of what is spoken against when folks are pooh-poohing
>>navigation. The two examples I gave, were one where an application
>>developer uses output from one query (foreign key value) to "navigate
>>to" another "spot" in the DBMS and the other where the DBMS takes the
>>query plus the metadata specification of a foreign key link and
>>"logically navigates"
>
> Yes, and JOG told you that that's not navigation, right?
Actually, I would say that Tony D gave the definitive answer on February 16 at 1:52pm.
>>(that is, I don't care if it sequentially reads
>>the entire medium multiple times at the physical layer, but to the
>>developer the database is navigated). If no one can give an example
>>of bad navigation (at the logical level), then could someone at least
>>tell if either or both of the examples I have provided for navigation
>>are bad and, if so, why.
> > If there is no navigation at the logical level, then there is no bad > navigation at the logical level. > >
>>I very much appreciate any effort given to try to help me understand
>>more precisely what database navigation is considered bad and why.
What a lying sack of shit. Anyone with half a brain can see she has no fucking intention of every understanding a goddam thing and she never had.
> Address based access.
Why, oh why, must you feed the troll? Do you do it to annoy everyone else?