[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Jeff Lowery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:07:37 -0500
I don't find namespaces hard to understand; I find them
hard to keep up with and if the application language
has flags in it that change the rules, very hard.
So far in this thread, a significant number of the
complaints about schemas turn out to be complaints
about namespaces. I am finding it reasonably
straightforward given an IDE to create a schema.
I haven't considered all the implications of namespaces
in the design and I'm beginning to think I don't want
to but know I can't avoid it if I want to modularize.
I see the "does too much" complaints but I side
with Henry on this: pick one feature to remove
and see who picks up a short sword at the same time.
Maybe tangential, but why do relational theorists
not have complaints with namespaces (shallow structure,
aliasing in the queries)? In other words, other
than the flags, do the namespace/schema complaints
relate to the OOPness or relational bent of the
developer? Are they easier or harder to use given
the implementation bias? For example, backward engineering
a relational db, schemas are easy (so far).
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h