Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««678910

Always Abstract Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, August 26, 2013 8:13 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:41 PM
Points: 815, Visits: 2,020
Presumably (although you say you want to normalise) you won't have any tables in any normal form, because that would requires primary key constraints that the database will enforce, which again is not reading and writing.


I can assure you, my designs are normalized. I have rarely had to go back to change something about the design due to error. And I find most other designs to have errors, so in the universe of database designs, I'm think I'm up there in enforcing this.

There is an overriding principle: the system has to work, it has to deliver adequate throughput and satisfactory response times at an economical price and at the agreed delivery date, and it has to be capable of any growth in throughput anticipated and be sufficiently flexible to permit easy maintenance and upgrade as and when required.


I agree with the principle, but it's hardly overriding. It's the main one. And too often I've seen it used as a excuse to take unnecessary shortcuts. Once I lost a discussion to have the MTS component start a transaction because performance would take a hit. Later, we had issues with some incomplete transactions that was solved by adding the transaction control when necessary. There had been time originally to do it right, others just didn't want to do the extra work.

As I said, I don't for one moment believe that you would apply any of those rules, although they are clearly implied by your statements; so my conclusion is that you are somewhat confused as to what having no business logic in the database implies.


I'm not confused. I'm hardly advocating anything radical about putting business rules in the middle tier. I don't find such characterizations helpul, either. I could have said the same thing about you, but what good would it have done? We are supposed to be discussion ideas, not trying to guess at the other's state of mind. I find it helpful to assume that everyone is acting in good faith. Not everyone is, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should still be assumed. As we cannot have a face to face discussion and diagram problems and solutions on the white board, we can only get so far in our understanding of each others views.



Post #1488396
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««678910

Permissions Expand / Collapse