[AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL

MartyConnelly martyconnelly at shaw.ca
Fri Sep 30 19:07:59 CDT 2005


With Cache you have to read the swipes Date and Pascal take at it
Against
http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/pascal5
But with Fabian Pascal, you start believing in Mystic Eisegesis and
start looking for notes nailed to church doors.
http://www.dbdebunk.com/index.html

For
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5746

Jim Lawrence wrote:

>Shamil:
>
>That description is a very good one. I have not seen a translation as good
>as that one and I think none of the rules can be refuted. The issues arrive
>when they are described in context with database normalization. I rarely
>process below Form 3. 
>
>A collogue has been saying for years that the relational database as we know
>it is designed wrong. He claims that a real relational database or
>post-relational database is OOP. To that end he says he can demonstrate that
>a Caché database running on a slower computer can run the same application
>as an existing MS SQL DB faster and with better access to the data. It is
>suppose to scale to millions of records was no apparent loss in performance.
>(I am skeptical and unfortunately missed last night's demonstration but will
>reserve my judgment until further observation.)   
>
>I anticipate a carefully timed demonstration... There is a free single user
>download from http://www.intersystems.com/cache/downloads/ (Windows/Linux)
>
>Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Shamil
>Salakhetdinov
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:07 AM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>Jim,
>
>But I think MS SQL 2000 and MS SQL 2005 perfectly fit all the twelve
>Dr.E.F. Codd rules.
>
>http://www.frick-cpa.com/ss7/Theory_RelationalDB.asp
>
>Maybe there are some small exceptions for the rules:
>
>#4. Database is Self-Describing
>#12. Data Integrity Cannot be Subverted
>
>but they are not significant I think.
>
>Shamil
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca>
>To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'"
><accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:40 PM
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>
>Hi Alan:
>
>If all ten law/rules/guidelines were ever fully implemented on a database
>the application it would grind to a halt. It has been attempted, to various
>degrees, in data designs within Government Ministries for years and in ever
>cases it has failed. The basic guidelines of relational databases as I see
>them are as follows:
>1. The data must be easy to retrieve...therefore the data should be grouped.
>
>2. The database must be kept as small as reasonable...therefore as little
>duplication as possible.
>3. A high level of performance must be maintained.
>
>With those three guidelines much of Codd's/Date's rules can be implemented
>but the whole concept starts to fall apart when enforcing the rules start to
>impact performance.
>
>My two cents worth
>Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Lawhon, Alan C
>Contractor/Morgan Research
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:44 AM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>Arthur, Charlotte:
>
>Several years ago I recall buying (and trying to comprehend) relational
>database guru Chris Date's "classic" book (it's more like a tome ...)
>"An Introduction to Database Systems".  (Chris Date's main claim to
>fame is as a protégé of the late Dr. E.F. "Ted" Codd - the "father" of
>the relational database model.)  Date worked with Dr. Codd in the early
>1970's at IBM.  He is now a full time consultant and writer - mostly of
>articles dealing with various topics related to database design.
>
>Chris Date is a relational "purist" (some might say a zealot) in arguing
>that a database system (or a vendor implementation of a database system)
>cannot be considered truly "relational" if it violates any of Codd's "Ten
>Rules" of relational database design.  (Without "naming names," Chris Date
>excoriates various vendor implementations of the relational model in his
>book.  He accuses these vendors of committing various "unforgivable sins"
>against the relational model.  Chris Date implies (or in some cases flat
>out states) that these "sins" [of implementation] will lead to nothing
>but trouble when commercial systems are designed and built using these
>"flawed" implementations.  (I'm doing a lot of paraphrasing of Chris Date's
>words and writing here, but I think I have the "general drift" of Date's
>criticisms just about right.)
>
>I think part of the "problem" (from the vendors perspective) may be that
>creating a [truly] "relational" database system that passes muster with
>Chris Date is probably very difficult - not to mention very costly.  (After
>investing literally BILLIONS of dollars in research and development, a
>vendor may come up with an implementation that meets the requirements of
>six or seven of the ten rules - and ignores (or "violates") the other three
>rules.  Chris Date focuses in on the three (or four) rules that have been
>violated - and declares the whole implementation "fatally flawed".
>
>I would have to go back and re-read "An Introduction to Database Systems,"
>but I have a feeling that the introduction of "Multi-choice combos" is
>the kind of thing that will drive Chris Date up the wall.
>
>Alan C. Lawhon
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:40 AM
>To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>You can add MySQL to your list of offending databases. MySQL offends in two
>ways, actually, but I will leave that as an exercise for the interested
>reader.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust
>Sent: September 29, 2005 11:05 AM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>I haven't *seen* it.  The stated concept gives me shivers because of
>"databases" like Approach and FileMaker that have allowed multiple
>choices stored in a single field.
>
>Charlotte
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:artful at rogers.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:05 PM
>To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>
>Multi-choice combos <> relational constraints!
>Case in point: I want to add N children to a parent, whose DetailType is
>selected from a multi-choice combo.... i.e. add a Hotel, a CarRental, a
>ConcertTicket, an AirportShuttle. The UI lets me do this as quickly as
>possible, and background code takes care of the Parent-Child
>relationships. I see no problem here. What are you seeing?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte
>Foust
>Sent: September 28, 2005 11:22 AM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>  
>
>>>Multi-choice combo box (M-M joins)
>>>      
>>>
>
>That's the one I find scary.  Does that mean they're abandoning
>relational design?
>
>Charlotte
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gustav Brock [mailto:Gustav at cactus.dk]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:32 AM
>To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL
>
>
>Hi all
>
>OK, found something in the slides at the links from Jim.
>Does anyone know if "Append only" is fixed or optional?
>
><snip>
>
>ACE - Access Data Engine
>
>- Engine based on Jet code-base and installed with Office, 100%
>backwards compatible with Jet
>- Connects to external data sources
>- Foundation for richer support of complex data
>- Multi-choice combo box (M-M joins)
>- Attachments
>- Append only
>- Read and write Excel "12" file formats
>- SharePoint ISAM enhancements
>- OM changes to DAO and ACE OLEDB provider (ADO)
>
></snip>
>
>I guess OM here means Object Model.
>Further:
>
><snip>
>
>New ACCDB file format
>
>- Can be emailed and stored in SharePoint document libraries
>- Default for all new database
>- Supports complex data features
>- Multiple value lookups
>- Attachments
>- Append only
>- SharePoint list offline
>- Office file encryption not Jet encoding
>
></snip>
>
>Also this summary:
>
><snip>
>
>- Microsoft is committed to Access as a developer platform
>- SharePoint Services integration allows developers to build new types
>of collaborative applications
>- Developers can build and deploy tracking templates
>
></snip>
>
>Note that an Outlook code example in the presentation uses DAO, so this
>seems not to be "dead" at all.
>
>/gustav
>
>  
>
>>>>Gustav at cactus.dk 27-09-2005 21:03 >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Hi Susan and Martin
>
>Thanks!
>Just wondering what this new engine should be about ...
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Marty Connelly
Victoria, B.C.
Canada






More information about the AccessD mailing list