[Tfug] Any SQL gurus out there?

[Don Freeman]

In my experience most RDBMS setups have both related and unrelated tables.
If its convenient to store code in a table, why not? If the code is created
to help maintain the data then maybe it IS related. :) 


Don W. Freeman, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Pima Association of Governments
177 N. Church Ave. #405
Tucson AZ 85701
(520) 792-1093 voice
(520) 620-6981 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: tfug-bounces at tfug.org [mailto:tfug-bounces at tfug.org] On Behalf Of
Claude Rubinson
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:40 PM
To: tfug at tfug.org
Subject: Re: [Tfug] Any SQL gurus out there?

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:25:39PM -0700, Robert Hunter wrote:
> There is nothing inherently wrong with storing code in a database.
> Databases are collections of structured data, that can be queried and 
> updated.  If storing code in such a system makes sense, then why not?
> Obviously, the real question is what would be the purpose of doing so?

<snipping discussion of version control vs AI system>

But Jim was asking about a relational database, which is different from a
generic datastore (which, of course, includes, e.g., flat text files,
version control, etc).

To justify why one would store code within an RDBMS, one would have to
demonstrate the relational nature of the code/rules/etc and specify the
rules by which the code entity relates to other entities in the RDBMS.
Certainly there are probably times when it's appropriate but I'm suggesting
that they're few and far between.

Claude

_______________________________________________
Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
Subscription Options:
http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org