Re: RM's Canonical database
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:33:44 GMT
Message-ID: <sklqg.119988$IK3.85809_at_pd7tw1no>
>
> Why do you think that? Rules can be centralized in the middle tier just as well
> as in the DB, can they not?
> ...
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:33:44 GMT
Message-ID: <sklqg.119988$IK3.85809_at_pd7tw1no>
Ron Jeffries wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2006 09:04:21 -0700, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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. >>> >>> Another possibility for a location for such a rule is in a middle tier, where it >>> can also meet the DRY principle. >> But then you lose the centralization.
>
> Why do you think that? Rules can be centralized in the middle tier just as well
> as in the DB, can they not?
> ...
heh heh, 'centralized in the middle'! i love it.
(does this say nothing or does the Internet make it somehow special? personally, i think one must define appl'n before one defines app constraint)
p Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 05:33:44 CEST