[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?

Jonathan S. Shapiro shap at eros-os.com
Thu Jul 17 13:03:40 CDT 2008


On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:54 +0000, Stiegler, Marc D wrote:
> As I pointed out years ago in an earlier discussion of persistence,
> one of the nice things about the traditional relational dbms and its
> schema is, when you need to do an upgrade, the schema is a clean
> compact representation of the core of the upgrade problem....

Equally important, it constitutes an alleged type system that informally
encapsulates many of the essential internal semantic relationships of
the data set, and the transactional capabilities of a DBMS mean that you
can do an all-or-nothing upgrade procedure on it.

EROS/KeyKOS have a similarly generic low-level representation, but they
don't have anything analogous to a schema, and I have come to see this
as a failing. All of the stories I have heard for upgrading such systems
are just that: stories.


shap



More information about the cap-talk mailing list