[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: A DBA perspective.
See my comments inline: David RR Webber wrote: > Farrukh - I have a real problem when you make statements > like this all!!! > > Well no surprises there ; -) I made no personal statement about anyones approach nor used any derogatory adjectives. I made technical statements on my technical beliefs > > > <cola discussion snipped> > > What's this about OQL?!? That's a specific query syntax > however which way you want to slice it - and > I thought we'd already agreed this dog will not hunt? If its > such a hugely available standard why is Oracle not supporting > it? ODMG 3.0 and therefor OQL is a standard. I did not say it is dominant. I will quote myslef from my last proposal: 3. It is based on a dominant existing standard (SQL) and a not so dominant yet existing standard (OQL) SQL is a dominant standard. Anyone disagree? The constarined OQL approach is nothing more than SQL subset with minor extesnions borrowed from OQL to support method calls. I could just as well have used SQL3 or SQL99. > > > What's this about homebrewed syntax? Hey - that argument > can be applied to ALL the syntax so far developed for > registry - its just something someone made up - and the > only point is that it is using angle bracket markup called > XML. Containers for content. If we are not allowed to > ever do this because it is some kind of mortal sin - why > is everyone else doing it?! The issue is not the registry ineterface. The issue is a query syntax. Query syantx is a very big wheel to re-invent (I believe I heard that wonderful cliche from Duanne from your company in an earlier version of the Technical Architecture document). Inventing a registry interface is a necessity. Inventing a query syntax is a very big deal and a very tough job to do. I do not have the intellectual cycles to do it. > > > OK - let's see if we can agree on sodas. > > See my notes below. > > Thanks, DW. > ================================================== > Message text written by Farrukh Najmi > > > > I want to point out that stored procedures are an implementation detail. IN > contrast the methods defined in RIM 0.54 ( > http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200101/msg00086.html ) > > used by the OQL approach are elements of registry specifications. It should > be noted that the constrained OQL approach could be implemented to map the > speced relationship methods in RIM to stored procedures directly (as an > implementation choice). > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ok - so why choose OQL at all? > If we stick to the highlevel we avoid > any query syntax specifics at all. > An implementor can then choose > whatever they please - at the level > of the API the backend query > syntax is not visible. > > > In my own implementation I personally would stay > clear of stored procedures based on a very long history of having > implemented database engines as well as query processors. They are a > maintainenec nightmare and are not implemented in a standard way across DBMS > (one loses DB portability). > > >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly - so we define 'blackbox' procedure behaviour. > I'm not suggesting that you personally should > maintain every registry implementation on the > planet. All we care about is consistent behaviour. > If I invoke getRegistryObject against two > different registries - I should get the same result > set - I care not what internal hoops they are > jumping thru. > > I would instead choose to define methods on implementations of objects (e.g. > ManagedObjectImpl) defined by RIM to return a SQL query as a direct and > simple mapping of the relationship method. The OQL processor would call > these methods to resolve these methods calls to their equivalent SQL > queries. It would then apply any simple global optimization over the query > predicate and then simply pass the resulting SQL query to the relational > database. > >>>>>>>>>>> Overuse of the word simple. You just told me > that writing code is a nightmare to > maintain - so why are you saying to write > SQL and OQL now? Let's define those > methods of the objects and we are done. > We then state that implementors will > choose to map these to their own > query syntax as needed. The > only common thread is that the > content exchanged is passed > inside of XML containers. > > The key difference in the 2 approaches being debated is that the constrained > OQL approach is based on standards (SQL, OQL) and is familiar to use for > most implementors, while the custom XML qyery syntax is a home brewed query > language syntax that does not have the strength of years of experience, > review and expert contribution that the former approach does. > > >>>>>>>>>>> OQL familiar? So more people know OQL than XML? > XML does not have years of experience? Farrukh > what do you think I've been doing for the past 23+ > years? Writing memos, making phone calls > and playing solitaire? > > We need ad hoc querying that average end > users can handle. Simple XML containered > API approach will reach more people easily > than requiring knowledge of a specific > query syntax - I don't care which one you > choose. > > DW. -- Regards, Farrukh
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:email@example.com fn:Farrukh Najmi end:vcard
Powered by eList eXpress LLC