Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Wed Mar 12 19:53:15 CDT 2014
Hi Francisco: I think that whole discussion has moved on. I seriously doubt whether suggesting a "bound" database is even an issue now, is a stretch and those still supporting it, IMHO, are on pare with members of "The Fall-Earth Society". The "bound" argument was flimsy even back in the late nineties or as soon a real ACID databases became the industry standard...and the realization that there was just not enough band-width, nodes or servers to support object binding. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francisco Tapia" <fhtapia at gmail.com> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:27:30 AM Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Darryl Collins < darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au> wrote: > Bound vs Unbound controls also seems to be a topic that gets folks, ummm, > passionate, about their position I have noted... > only because the bound folks can't disassociate with the the critical requirement in today's world of being disconnected from the datasource for local caching and synching ;-) [granade thrown...] -Francisco <http://twitter.com/seecoolguy> _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com