Some Hype on "new" databases

http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=293

This might interest Mountain Man:

"That?s to say that data and procedures are being joined at long last?albeit
perhaps by a shotgun wedding. The Java or common language runtimes have been married to relational database engines so that the traditional EJB-SQL outside-inside split has been eliminated. Now Beans or business logic can run inside the database. Active databases are the result, and they offer tremendous potential?both for good and for ill. (More about this as the discussion proceeds.) Our most immediate challenge, however, stems from traditional relational databases never being designed to allow for the commingling of data and algorithms."

..and each sentence here I have found to be true:

"Those who hate triggers and the active databases they enable will probably
not be swayed by the argument that a better language foundation is now available. For those who are believers in active databases, however, it should be much easier to build systems."

This strategy strikes me as doomed:

"Still, security concerns?bearing in mind that databases offer vast attack
surfaces?will likely lead many designers to opt for three-tier server architectures that allow only Web servers in the demilitarized zone and database systems to be safely tucked away behind these Web servers on private networks."

Perhaps this is the most fascinating, with the admission that there is no general solution for workflows:

"The key question facing researchers is how to structure workflows. Frankly,
a general solution to this problem has eluded us for several decades. Because of the current immediacy of the problem, however, we can expect to see plenty of solutions in the near future. Out of all that, some clear design patterns are sure to emerge, which should then lead us to the research challenge: characterizing those design patterns."

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)