On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:49:03 -0700 (MST), "Lee Crain"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I mean no offense to anyone but the conversation on this subject seems a
>little strange to me.
>
>SQLite is what it is. If it was like everything/anything else, we wouldn't
>need or want it. It is designed to fill a particular niche in the DBMS
>world and from my perspective, with every passing day, it seems to be
>filling it a little better.
>
>Concerning SQLite's extensions, they are what they are - as conceived by
>DRH and his assistants. They have a particular vision for this product and
>they are continuing to realize it with every new release.
>
>If you want another DBMS, they're out there. If you want what SQLite has
>to offer, it's available. To me, it's mostly a black and white subject.
>
>I can understand people requesting and suggesting new features and
>functionality. That's normal and appropriate. But, I can't see those that
>dramatically alter the functionality, complexity, size, or paradigm of the
>product being implemented, or ask those that ask it to be like some other
>DBMS.
>
>I guess I'm old school when it comes to databases. To me, they are highly
>efficient file data storage and retrieval mechanisms. All the other bells
>and whistles my employer wants go into a traditional 3-tier software
>structure. The middle tier is the exclusive home of the business rules. I
>wouldn't consider migrating those into the database or DBMS. Doing so
>spreads them out and makes cohesive control and support of them much more
>difficult.
>
>Where I work, our software is responsible for all data qualifications,
>data manipulations, the maintenance of referential integrity, and the
>control of access in a multi-threaded environment. I wouldn't even
>consider asking the DBMS to do those things. As a developer, I want
>explicit control of them and other functionalities that are not strictly
>database (file cabinet) related.
>
>My only unfulfilled desire is that SQLite eventually be fully ANSI SQL '92
>compliant, as a minimum. From my perspective, it is getting there. Rome
>wasn't built in a day.
>
>My 2 cents,
>
>Lee Crain
I agree wholeheartedly, except for the referential integrity,
which, in my humble opinion, _is_ the domain of a 'true'
relational database engine, just like other constraints ('data
domain integrity').
That's because I think a database table should be thought of as
a relation, or a set, not a file. Similarly a database is more
than a file cabinet.
At the same time, I can live with the workaround for referential
integrity, that is, insert/update/delete triggers.
--
( Kees Nuyt
)
c[_]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
