Re: RM's Canonical database

From: AndrewMackDonna <newsamd_at_amc.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:59:46 +0100
Message-ID: <e8bpfb$rc6$2_at_news.freedom2surf.net>

J M Davitt wrote:

> Ron Jeffries wrote:

>> On 1 Jul 2006 11:02:07 -0700, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [speaking in terms of the enterprise dbms]
>>>
>>> I reject your argument on simple definitional grounds.
>>>
>>> Given a business with a set of applications A and a database
>>> D managed by a dbms M.
>>>
>>> Consider a given rule R.
>>>
>>> If for all a in A R holds, then R is a business rule, and should be
>>> managed by M.
>>
>>
>> Obviously one /can/ put such a rule into the DBMS. It does not follow
>> that one
>> should.
>> In favor of putting a common rule in the DBMS is that it is
>> centralized. The
>> "Once and Only Once", or "DRY" principle suggests that it should be
>> there.
>
> DRY? Would you explain this, please?

Dont Repeat Yourself

snipped remaining.....

Andrew Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 20:59:46 CEST