Martin Wildam wrote: > On 16 Jul., 12:43, Steven Herod <steven.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> XML would be the >> 'modern' equivalent. To do it in a relational database with Java >> would involve a lot more work and a lot less flexibility. >> > > I am working in DMS and ECM field and here there is a wave of products > using alternatives (although sometimes just as an addition). What I > observe is that "stores" that are not structured as tables - stores > that allow the storage of any data (beeing an object, xml or whatever) > increases the "data mess". Many people have difficulties in keeping > their data structured and organized (as many having problems keeping > their household in pretty order ;-) ). A relational database might > give you limitations in freedom how to archive your data but my > observation is that relational databases produce less chaos. - YMMV. >
Good observation, but chaos can be creative ;-) It just depends on the context, of course. Sometimes you have applications with data structures that can expand dynamically, and you can't be constrained by a fixed SQL schema. For instance, for a couple of projects I'm using a RDF triple store - you can add as many information you need, and still it keeps a reasonable structure. Of course, you're more responsible for not making chaos than with a SQL database. -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/blog fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
