SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML, but when?

re: SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML, but when?

Jerry Pisk — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:30:00 GMT

My question is why, why would you put your application logic into a database? It seems that Microsoft's marketing department has too much of a say of what goes into the SQL Server development and they wanted to be able to say - look, we can also put business logic into database, just like Oracle. Now you can code your website in SQL Server.

re: SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML, but when?

DavidM — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:29:00 GMT

“Great, now we have an object oriented database”... No you don't! Type support in RM is one the most important features that has never been implemented properly. RM does not care what the type is.. You will still be able to work in sets regardless of the type... As long as Yukon allows us equality comparison against any UDT defined (regardless of complexity) then set based processing will still be achievable....

The biggest mistake people will make is what is a type and what is a relation. If you find yourself "unwrapping" the type to get to its properties all the time, then that would indicate a poor design decision....

Personally I wished the Yukon build would have concentrated on making it more RM compliant by allowing us richer constraint definitions...

Jerry, is application logic the same as business/data logic? Would you enforce an RI constraint or key constraint in your application code? Where does the distinction end for you? The more rules you can enforce at DDL time the better for all involved IMHO....

re: SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML, but when?

Kent Tegels — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:09:00 GMT

Some examples of CLR UDTs: EncryptedData, XML (yeah, that's how they do that...) and the new Data and Time types. Otherwise, I think you're right on about this.

Take Outs for 16 March

Enjoy Every Sandwich — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:14:00 GMT

You have been Taken Out! Thanks for the post.

re: SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML, but when?

mszCool — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:59:00 GMT

I actually know that UDT support makes SQL Server Yukon NOT to an OO-DB. If you read my blog carefully you can see that!

Excerpt of my blog:
---
“Great, now we have an object oriented database” is what I have heard very often these days. But is that really correct? Just think about it – you are still accessing data in a set oriented manner – SQL – and the engine is still a relational engine. It is optimized for working with entities and relations between those entities given through constraints. Therefore Object-Relational-Mapping layers or data access layers (however they work) are the bridge between your programming model and the relational data model.
---

SQL Server Usergroup Austria - SQL Server Programmability

Christian Nagel's OneNotes — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:23:00 GMT

Dinner and a Movie » mszCool’s thoughts and cents revealed : SQL Server Yukon - CLR & XML …

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:59:28 GMT

PingBack from http://dinnermoviesblog.info/mszcools-thoughts-and-cents-revealed-sql-server-yukon-clr-xml/

mszCool s thoughts and cents revealed SQL Server Yukon CLR amp XML | Paid Surveys

Fri, 29 May 2009 01:55:11 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=mszcool-s-thoughts-and-cents-revealed-sql-server-yukon-clr-amp-xml

mszCool s thoughts and cents revealed SQL Server Yukon CLR amp XML | debt solutions

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:39:38 GMT

PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=1056