Re: On specialization constraints time of application

On 14 juin, 19:58, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bf51c5b8-57fd-4395-a3ed-987e5843fbb4_at_f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Because they ignore RM definitions about, SQL developpers also ignore
> > > > that drawbacks of using nulls far outweights any advantages.
>
> > > I would have used 'misusing nulls' instead of 'using nulls' because
> > > judicious use of nulls can actually reduce both development and
> > > execution
> > > time, as well as maintenance, especially if decomposition would
> > > introduce
> > > complicated interrelational constraints. For example, a schema for
> > > married
> > > employees,
>
> > > MarriedEmployees {EMP#, NameOfSpouse}
>
> > > where NameOfSpouse can be null is a lot easier to maintian than a pair
> > > of
> > > schemata,
> > I do not want ot make this an offtopic debate about whether NULLS are
> > a good thing or not. I can only say that it is not my experience.
>
> My experience is different, but I also don't want this to turn into a
> pissing contest.

Thank you for understanding. Appart of the fact that people loose sight of respectfully disagreeing, I have found out that one of the things that also hurts the emergence of new ideas is the fact that people get quickly diverted to general subjects that have been discussed a million times. Many times I have posted threads where I would submit a specific subject for discussion and somehow it often ends up on the same subjects:

NULL vs NON NULL use
SQL vs OO
SQL vs RM
RM vs OO

Not that I am claiming that all of the above do not deserve discussion but I have hard time relating them to for instance a discussion that is not in the layer of RM but for instance the layer of computing models related to RM.

My two cents... Received on Sun Jun 14 2009 - 20:12:35 CEST