[dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate

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



More information about the dba-SQLServer mailing list