sybrandb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
schrieb am 29.04.2008 in
<86nd14tano88itspmv6fbobv49g6fpcf5q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:00:44 +0200, Andreas Mosmann
> <mosmann@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> It so happens, databases are *designed*, and one shouldn't have one
> database per app.
Why? Please explain your view!
In general I have a customer that wants a solution for his problem.
There are some cases the solution is to develop a software using a
database, f.e. oracle. So I have to develop 1 Application and 1
Database.
Of course, if there already exists a db and the new problem/solution is
related to this data it is possible/useful to integrate the new
data/structure into the existing db and you have more than 1 app to only
one db.
It is also possible that there is an application collectiong data from
more than 1 source, maybe databases/web services or anything else. So
you have 1 application corresponding with more databases.
> What you describe are the Mickey Mouse procedures so typical for the
> toy products provided by Mickeysoft.
Ok, but what is wrong to spend time with useful and paid work instead of
doing the same boring stuff again and again? And please do not tell me
that it is impossible to do fulfil my "wish". Maybe it seems to be
useless for you, but impossible?
> Grow up, accept Oracle is much more mature than Mickeysoft will ever
> produce, or stick to Mickeysoft.
I did not criticised the way oracle is working inside but the delivered
tools. Do you really want to tell me that I have to use stone age tools
to work with a "mature" rdbms? If not, am I a wimp?
Andreas Mosmann
--
wenn email, dann AndreasMosmann <bei> web <punkt> de
|
