Re: broad discussion about future market direction for DBA

Johnsog123_at_hotmail.com (grjohnson) wrote:
> "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >news:<3dd9194e$0$8512$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com>...
> > I disagree (almost) entirely. XML is a self describing markup language.
> > Doesn't that just make your heart race. Actually even if it does, does
> > it make your CEO or marketing director's heart race. Thought not. It
> > shouldn't. XML doesn't *by itself* solve any business problem
> > whatsoever.
> > > --
>
> Well, depends on where you look at it from. There seems to be a
> growing trend for companies to move away from the traditionaly
> relational model for storing data. XML helps this functionality. I.e
> storing data which changes from minute to minute, i.e. the TAGS of the
> record are added and/or removed without any modifications to the
> underlying table structure. It's not posible to store this type data
> in a traditional database WITHOUT DBA intevention, i.e. addition,
> removal of columns,

It is possible to do that without DBA intervention. I do it all the time without DBA intervention, because the DBA did a grant which allows me to do so. Of course, this is only for a few schema/tables, not all of them. But if it's a bad thing for the DBA to give me all priviledges on all schema/tables when running under a RDBMS, why would it become a good idea to bestow the analogous power upon me under another DBMS?

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service              New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB