Re: Should an application ever be allowed to change a schema?
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:27:25 +0200
Message-ID: <408a8763$0$36169$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> Doesn't the planned implementation of Longhorn use SQL-Server as its
> filesystem?
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:27:25 +0200
Message-ID: <408a8763$0$36169$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> mAsterdam writes
>> Karen Sundquist wrote: >> >>> Imagine a database that is only accessed by a server application. >> >> ...This effectively reduces the meaning of the word 'database' to >> 'deluxe filesystem'. No problem, many use the word in that sense.
>
> Doesn't the planned implementation of Longhorn use SQL-Server as its
> filesystem?
Ah, the sequel to the OS that has a
web-browser and a media-player
as essential, impossible-to-remove parts.
> What about Native Pick? Or OS/400?
They both use technology that originated from databases
at an unusal level.
I haven't ever worked on AS/400, but what I hear from people
who do is that they like it very much for database applications.
Same goes for Pick.
> In some cases, the "deluxe file system" IS what you would call a
> database, I suspect. In others (Longhorn?) I suspect the use of a
> database is a gross abuse of the concept of a filesystem :-)
:-)
> Shades of grey.
Some demarcation lines do get blurred.
"The filesystem is the database" "The network is the computer" "The media is the message" "L��tat, c�est moi"Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 17:27:25 CEST