Re: OO and IBM z series COBOL was Re: Discussions of COBOLphilospphy

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
 news:7uotg3hr7ilbu09726uatk94hm924n8d65@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:24:40 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
>
> If it were designed well, it wouldn't need to be smart because it wouldn't
> have any
> dependencies (except keys). It would be in normal form.

Possibly... I've seen very few live databases with more than a few tables,
that were ever normalized; often redundancy is built back inot them because
some DBA thinks it is a good idea :-)

Even if we had a perfect database, there is still a case for making it
smart. There are functions (particularly with Dates) that are much better
suited to "back end" processing than doing them in application code.
>
> The exception is reports, which can be kept up to date automatically by
> materialized
> views.

Again, mileage may vary :-)
>
> A GOOD use for triggers is leaving audit trails. When triggers, rather
> than applications,
> are used,  the audit cannot be bypassed by utilities such as SQLPLUS and
> TOAD, nor my
> misbehaving applications.

Yes, I have used triggers for this purpose when dealing with sensitive data.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:56:49 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>"Most programs will run slower on a dual processor PC than on a single proc
essor PC. Rare
>exceptions are programs like Adobe Premiere that are designed to make effec
tive use of two
>CPUs.

Does this include Unix PCs?



My wife has Parallels running on her Mac, which runs a Windows VM.
Another company has come out with one that I've read grabs a processor
and thus runs Windows faster - as a single-processor system.

I wonder what other VMs in mainframes and elsewhere do this.