Re: Persistence
- From: "Alfredo" <alfredono@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jul 2006 03:51:45 -0700
frebe73@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:
If don't think there are a significant difference between persistence
and data management, I don't know what to say...
I suggest: self-aggrandizing ignoramus.
The sillyness in your remark is in the fact that to store data into
whatever container you came up with, you have to execute some logic.
Whatever that logic is is not that important, it only will control the
limitations of what you can do with the data in the persistent storage
(e.g. if there's no retrieval logic, reading the data back will be hard)
If you think a SQL database is about storing data into a container, I
can't help you.
Indeed, you can't.
5. I am too ignorant about the relational model and SQL database, so
lets just label it as "persistence".
This is the same as 3.
Persistence = storing data on disk
No.
Persistent = exists from session to session.
I have persistent data in RAM in my diskless Pocket PC.
Why do you need a RDBMS to do this?
Because his snake-oil is just for this.
Synchronizing in-memory objects
with persistent storage does not require quieries or integrity
constraints. A much simpler tool would do the job.
Indeed, but managing a non trivial database through application
in-memory objects is a big blunder.
Regards
Alfredo
.
- References:
- Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Re: Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Re: Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Persistence
- Prev by Date: Re: More buzz wanted
- Next by Date: Re: More buzz wanted
- Previous by thread: Re: Persistence
- Next by thread: Re: Persistence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|