Re: Need SQL Server Temp Table equivalent (challenge!)

> Well, I'm happy it works for you. There are many ways to build
> an app. I just think you probably should have gone with a much
> more flexible storage-based solution to begin with, maybe an XML
> based solution or some completely OO based storage? Choosing an
> RDBMS should immediately say that you want to use relationship
> modeling as the central tenet to your data storage needs. In
> choosing an RDBMS, you inherently asked to be hampered when it
> comes to redesigning your database. You asked for this in the
> same way one asks that stop lights work correctly, even at the
> expense of being slowed down on his way to work. The safety on
> the road is too important, even to the detriment of getting to
> work more quickly.
>
> I wish you luck in not getting hit while crossing the street.

Good analogy!

Let me give you another benefit of this design: Minimal change to your product for different customers. Example: let's say you are a company (like SAP) who loves to sell to ALL (big) business your ERP product. But each business has their similarities and differences. You can't foresee what's important to them. You further can't foresee what are the relationships of those that are important to them. Thus you created a product such that you can customize (or configure) easily for them (they have to pay you to do that...they are willing to get ripped off). The point is, for turnkey products, you can't beat this "meta-data" design. This is almost to the point of those case tools that were popular but almost dead now. But we know one big guy is still doing it--SAP. Why can't you do it better? If you stick with this specific design for each customer, your product becomes unsupportable, as there will be many versions out there.

I know of a company who purchased a retail product (pretty big Java based one) and 2 yrs later, they are still modifying. Naturally the CIO is gone. Even the CEO is gone. Sadly they are still modifying… Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:04:51 CDT