Re: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c9ondp$ev7$1_at_news.netins.net...

> I don't think it will take that. I think it is in the wind already.
SQL92
> still rules in the SQL world and I don't know that subsequent versions
will
> take off. ODBC has been shut down for enhancements for several years.
> XQuery, whatever you think of it, has Microsoft and IBM on board. Seeing
> the data the way that XML sees it (not said precisely, I'll admit) is
> stirring up trouble for the relational model even if the politically
correct
> thing to say is that XML has nothing to do with DBMS's, just with data
> exchange. Programmers are writing in OO languages or VB (with a little
> COBOL still making a dent) and none of these languages thinks in
relations.
> The wind is blowing and the storm is getting closer.

Oracle now supports XML natively in the database. Well, they say it's native. It's not, but that's okay. No one uses it in Oracle anyway. I keep reading that XML is coming. For the most part, it isn't- at least not yet. Show me some jobs requiring XML knowledge. By the time it comes around, something else will be taking its place. Relational is as entrenched now as COBOL once was. We have lots of VB, PowerBuilder, Progress, .NET and other OO code, and guess what- they all are used with Oracle. COBOL is still in use in our shop, but will be gone within the next 3 years. Relational will be around for quite a while.

> >
> > Contact me directly. I may have a spare.
>
> Rats -- based on your recommendation (along with reading a few others) I
> ordered a used one from amazon minutes before I read your offer. I needed
> some summer beach reading anyway.

Oh, well... Did you get 3rd or 4th Ed? Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 05:13:11 CEST