Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

Originally posted by Mike Preece

> andrewst <member14183_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message
> news:<3514739.1066911165_at_dbforums.com>...

> > Originally posted by Mike Preece

> >

> > > andrewst <member14183_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message

> > > news:<3505221.1066738677_at_dbforums.com>...

> >

> [snip]

> > OK, so you wrote all the IO functions, and presumably every
> developer is

> > expected to use them, and a QA process ensures they do? That's
> good.

> >

> > But tell me: how is that better than having an architecture
> where your

> > IO functions are the ONLY way to touch the data, rather than
> relying on

> > QA procedures? Or than having declarative integrity IN the
> database, so

> > that even if they don't call your functions they can't mess
> anything up?

>

> For the simple reason that the database is more flexible.

>

> I think you ought also to bare in mind that, with far fewer tables and

> far fewer joins between tables, there is far less that can get messed

> up.

>

> Regards

> Mike.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never said anything about how many tables or joins you should have. I was talking about having your data integrity enforced centrally rather than in each application.

--
Posted via http://dbforums.com