Re: Database schema for univesal usage

"David Cressey" <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xzYle.9359$M36.7409_at_newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote in message
> news:599im2-jon.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
>> David Cressey wrote:
>
>> The ALTER TABLE takes a moment, sure, especially if you are working
>> alone,
>> don't have any programs making use of the column, and have no users who
>> tend to dislike bringing the system down for changes.
>>
>> And if you don't have to write down why you did it, or justify it to
>> anybody, it's much easier than if you do. Who needs documentation, we
>> can
>> all remember, right?

...[trim]...

Does/should the "abstract machine" have
a log of change? It could be electronic entry in a help desk register as a task
with a date and time and comments.

That's what I'd do with it, because it is available, if in fact it can be a resource in the future.

> The point you raise is profound, and it deserves extended treatment.
> Oddly
> enough, it's related to the "redesign of the abstract machine" that
> mountain man is discussing in another thread.

It was a brief discussion only for the purpose of asking the following two questions which have not yet been answered:

1. Is it clear/true that Date's "abstract machine" necessarily evolves due to change management considerations over time? (eg: expansion of business to include widgets)
2. Does Date reference this issue?

Thanks for any comments,

Pete Brown
IT Managers & Engineers
Falls Creek
Australia
www.mountainman.com.au/software Received on Sun May 29 2005 - 13:06:18 CEST