--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> True. The reason for my interest is that the VA current employs
> Cache' as it "post-relational" database. Why not simply use is
> existing components to write Java front-ends to the data store, as
> they are doing with some of the re-hosting projects? An open source
> equivalent would take some time to develop, not to mention the
> porting
> of existing data.
>
There really is no such thing as a relational storage model. In fact,
the relational model says nothing about how data is stored internally,
it only describes a *logical* interface. That being said, it is
certainly true that relational products frequently use record-oriented
(i.e., flat) storage, with indexes being stored in the form of B-trees.
This differs from MUMPS implementations, that typically use B-trees for
data storage.
But let's not forget that the SQL interface (and the object interface)
are basically built on top of the global subsystem. You can use KB_SQL
(say) and SQLI with VistA to provide a "relational" view of the data (I
put it in quotes because this is really an abuse of language), but that
does not change the fundamental nature of the underlying database.
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It is foolish to answer a question that
you do not understand."
--G. Polya ("How to Solve It")
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
