Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!voder!pyramid!unify!nico From: nico@unify.uucp (Nico Nierenberg) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Why Distributed? Message-ID: Date: 10 Apr 90 16:13:53 GMT References: <40078@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <8936@sybase.sybase.com> <5180@rtech.rtech.com> <2b56xrv@unify.uucp> <5213@rtech.rtech.com> Reply-To: nico@unify.UUCP (Nico Nierenberg) Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA Lines: 69 In article <5213@rtech.rtech.com> markh@rtech.UUCP (Mark Hanner) writes: >I realize that it is sometimes hard to believe that this newsgroup is >not just a sounding board for obscure theoretical arguments, but in fact >the vast majority of readers are users rather than builders of databases. > >Nico is really missing Dave's point, which is what the vendor provides >is the only thing the user has to work with... > >In article <2b56xrv@unify.uucp> nico@unify.UUCP (Nico Nierenberg) writes: >>In article <5180@rtech.rtech.com> davek@rtech.UUCP (Dave Kellogg) writes: >>> >>>I couldn't have stated the problems with an RPC-based interface any better. >>>However, not all products use RPCs as the basis for distributed processing. >>>RPCs are not the same as distributed databases. >>> >> >>What in the world are you talking about? RPC stands for remote procedure >>call and is an implementation mechanism for routing requests over a >>network. It has nothing to do with a user view of a distributed or >>non-distributed database. > >This is true: if two products both give you a feature, you don't care >how each product does it as long as they both meet your needs. But the >dicussion here centers around the definition of the "distributed database" >feature. It is NOT the same thing to provide "distributed database" as it >is to provide "all the pieces you need to build your own distributed >database." Vendors having the latter almost universally call this >"distributed database" anyway. > I am afraid that my point was missed. I am not being an apologist for any particular implementation. My issue was that there is no current database which provides an RPC package and calls it "distributed database." They may indeed use RPC's to implement their system. I do agree that various vendors offer pieces of a distributed implementation and call it "distributed." >>> . . . . RPCs are NOT distributed databases and shouldn't >>>be sold or interpeted as such. >> >>Yes and 'C' compilers aren't distributed databases, good point :-(. > >Let the buyer beware. The salesman may say "distributed database" (or >"object-oriented" or ), but you may get nothing >more than a C compiler... > >>> >>>Dave Kellogg >>>Ingres Corporation >>>"Statements made are my own and not necessarily opinions of my employer" >>Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go, >>Unify Corp. there you are." >>nico@unify > >cheers, >mark > >-- >markh@rtech.COM >"Crass generalizations may be justified by admitting 10 exceptions." > -- marnie applegate -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go, Unify Corp. there you are." nico@unify