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

ihab.awad at gmail.com ihab.awad at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 13:10:37 CDT 2008


On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Interesting. The argument on the other side, of course, is that people miss
having Turing complete semantics to express the invariants and internal
relationships within that alleged type system. Hence database triggers
(horror!) and PL/SQL (septuple horror!).

What if one were to adopt the same sort of architecture, but consider the
"database" to be -- well -- a large vat with relatively simple semantics.
Upgrade it all in one big turn and we're done, and write its clients such
that they can be "rebooted" easily. Maybe orthogonal persistence is a sharp
knife to be used wisely.

Ihab

-- 
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20080717/b4444e9d/attachment.html 


More information about the cap-talk mailing list