Tony Eviston wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: > > >> I've done my duty in pointing out alternatives, but clearly you're all >> convinced, >> > > I'm not convinced yet. > I would rather see a rock solid, guaranteed-backward-compatible-forever > database schema. No matter if we have to add fields later as long as it > doesn't interfere with the function of tomorrow's legacy applications. > I don't mind if others want to go down the RoR or whatever object > oriented route but please don't make it compulsory. > > > Tony, I think this is a noble aim but not achievable as computer technology changes so fast (mind you, MUMPS has been around since the 1960s, so we could potentially get half a century out of a good database design), at least before Tim's $1 million comes along to hire some computer science PhDs. The private sector will never do this on its own as it's the IT equivalent of the everlasting match. The best we can do is provide a clear consistent structure and a means of exporting content, so when the next best super-solution comes also data can be transferred across.
Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
