Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bg0l+ From: bg0l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce E. Golightly) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.apps.* Message-ID: Date: 5 Jul 90 14:23:15 GMT References: <268D3CD0.65DA@telly.on.ca> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 33 In-Reply-To: <268D3CD0.65DA@telly.on.ca> Such groups might be a good idea in some ways. There are, however, a couple of points that should be raised. There are issues of scope. A question on technique may have an answer that is not specific to an application. Discussions about "How do you...." may transend the boundries of data base managers, especially since we're moving towards standardized SQL. We also want to avoid cutting off informational requests. There are questions along the lines of "We're trying to do such-and-such. Anybody done it before?" that are not specific to any product, and the perenial "What's the best..." questions. That last question sometimes sparks interesting debates/arguments/wars about the best way to implement something. A recent data base thread involved a discussion (flame fest?) about client-server architecture that started with a reasonably innocent question as I recall. A lot of interesting and valuable points were raised. I would really hate to see the data base group drift into intellectualism or become devoted only to theoretical issues instead of the "real world". One of the reasons I read it is for the cross-fertilization that comes from getting diverse users in the same forum. ############################################################################# ! Bruce E. Golightly ! bg0l@andrew.cmu.edu (BeeGeeZeroEl) Chief of Data Base Development ! (412)268-8560 Telecommunications Group ! Carnegie Mellon University ! UCC 117, 4910 Forbes Ave. ! Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 President, Western Penna IUA ! #############################################################################