Re: Here we go again...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66693
interpreted = N
texte = Thanks Kenneth. Thanks for clarifying the myth. I think it is important for developers to understand the facts. WebDNA = is not "relational" database. By database definition, you must meet = certain criteria to call something "relational" database. MS Access is not a true database because it didn't meet all the = criteria. Bess -----Original Message----- From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of Kenneth Grome Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:12 PM To: WebDNA Talk Subject: Re: Here we go again... On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:42:44 -0600, Pat McCormick wrote: > Actually WebDNA doesn't use a flat file. That is the case for the=20 > older Typhoon version, but WebDNA, simply because it can have=20 > multiple databases open, is no longer a flat file system. This is ridiculous. Webdna has always been a flat file database system = just like Bess said. It can open multiple flat file databases at a time = -- but so what? That does NOT make it a relational system by any means! > The purpose for products like Oracle, SQL and other "databases" is to=20 > encrypt your text so that you need to buy their products to see your=20 > text. This is another bad assumption. MySQL for example doesn't encrypt any = data, all its data is right there in files that can be edited by a text = editor. And MySQL certainly falls into the "SQL" category you = mentioned, right? I really don't mind people being "in love" with webdna and bragging = about it, but at the same time I think you should not make statements = that are your personal assumptions when they are sometimes far from the = truth. Webdna is clearly not the best solution for web sites that = benefit from relational systems, especially where large data sets are = involved. I have proven this on several occasions and so have others = I'm sure. Sincerely,=20 Kenneth Grome=20 owner@kengrome.com kengrome@gmail.com www.kengrome.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to = Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Thanks Kenneth. Thanks for clarifying the myth. I think it is important for developers to understand the facts. WebDNA = is not "relational" database. By database definition, you must meet = certain criteria to call something "relational" database. MS Access is not a true database because it didn't meet all the = criteria. Bess -----Original Message----- From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of Kenneth Grome Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:12 PM To: WebDNA Talk Subject: Re: Here we go again... On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:42:44 -0600, Pat McCormick wrote: > Actually WebDNA doesn't use a flat file. That is the case for the=20 > older Typhoon version, but WebDNA, simply because it can have=20 > multiple databases open, is no longer a flat file system. This is ridiculous. Webdna has always been a flat file database system = just like Bess said. It can open multiple flat file databases at a time = -- but so what? That does NOT make it a relational system by any means! > The purpose for products like Oracle, SQL and other "databases" is to=20 > encrypt your text so that you need to buy their products to see your=20 > text. This is another bad assumption. MySQL for example doesn't encrypt any = data, all its data is right there in files that can be edited by a text = editor. And MySQL certainly falls into the "SQL" category you = mentioned, right? I really don't mind people being "in love" with webdna and bragging = about it, but at the same time I think you should not make statements = that are your personal assumptions when they are sometimes far from the = truth. Webdna is clearly not the best solution for web sites that = benefit from relational systems, especially where large data sets are = involved. I have proven this on several occasions and so have others = I'm sure. Sincerely,=20 Kenneth Grome=20 owner@kengrome.com kengrome@gmail.com www.kengrome.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to = Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
"Bess Ho"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Extended [ConvertChars] (1997)
Webcat2, WebCommerce, Mod 10 etc. (1997)
about this server and links to who (1997)
WebCatalog vs. Cold Fusion (1998)
&fieldsdir=ra truely random?? (2000)
WebCat2.0b15-to many nested [xx] tags (1997)
[showif [getcookie otherDomain]=yes] inside a [TCP connect] will work? (2000)
Big Databases (1997)
NT Email Stops Sending (2000)
Questions (1998)
Exclamation point (1997)
Emailer setup (1997)
WebTen and WebCat (1997)
Not really WebCat (1997)
[WebDNA] WebDNA Showcase? (2008)
Banner DNA (1997)
Quotation Marks in Database (1998)
Erotic Sites (1997)
[text] prob (1998)
Null Characters (2005)