Re: foundations of relational theory?

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:pEhqb.16$re.107_at_news.oracle.com...
> "Patrick Payne" <patrickpayne_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b6da8ff0.0311051706.3e048add_at_posting.google.com...
> > Well put Chandru. My feeling here is that SQL was originally designed
> > as a Data Extraction Tool (i.e. query language). SQL was really
> > nothing more than a 'APPLICATION' that then touched the database. SQL
> > was then extended to do updates and was extended to be a end-all data
> > access application. The nice thing about this model was that it
> > forced all data access to go thru this one app. Any of us that write
> > application understand the benefits of using a standardized module for
> > data access/update.
> >
> > Data integrity then became an issue. Data contraints were added, then
> > triggers, etc. But I believe we (the industry) has finally realized
> > that this was the wrong direction and has moved towards the 3-tier
> > data model. In this model we do not allow the end user direct access
> > to the database. Instead we develop business modules that the user
> > calls. This model has the advantages of Forced Data Integrity, the
> > end user does not have to know our data model. Essentially it creates
> > customized mini-sql engines for our data objects. As I study this
> > model more and play with it with Microsoft .net, Disconnected
> > datasets, and XML data sets, I really feel this is the future.
>
> And who are you to tell us the future? For starters, look at Michael
> Stonebraker's video lecture at
> http://murl.microsoft.com/ContentMapDetails.asp?SeriesID=27
> When dumb practitioners learn that client-server paradigm is still used in
> 3-tier implementations?

Future? Who the hell is he to tell us the past? The history of SQL is well-known and in no way resembles the deluded fantasy this ignoramus posted. Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 06:06:13 CET