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

Mike Samuel mikesamuel at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 16:59:53 CDT 2008


2008/7/17 <ihab.awad at gmail.com>:

>
> 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's wrong with database triggers?



> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/attachments/20080717/5169d5c5/attachment.html 


More information about the cap-talk mailing list