[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases

• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 00:44:18 +1000
• Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <cc159a4a0505040726a63eccf@m...>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <4277EFB2.70501@d...> <200505041432.54216.david.lyon@c...> <000a01c55068$5418a7d0$1601a8c0@DURANTE> <200505041546.42687.david.lyon@c...> <4278D55D.3080001@d...> <cc159a4a0505040726a63eccf@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Peter Hunsberger wrote:

>On 5/4/05, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but in Gray's article, the
>>vision does not seem to include a middle tier. The database becomes the
>>center of the universe, and pretty much everything we associate with the
>>middle tier becomes part of the database. The database also takes on
>>some of the functionality traditionally associated with an operating system.
>>
>>How likely is this? Do users want that level of centralization?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think such a beast is necessarily centralized, it's just
>highly integrated.  I doubt that the users (whomever they may be)
>understand what they are asking for in direct terms. But as the
>article and this thread points out, the market seems to be building
>this whether the users want it or not.  Oracles vision of the DB as an
>OS is well known. MS is adding some form of DB into the middle of its
>next OS (some time real soon now, well maybe sort of). IBM continues
>to integrate everything into one massive WebSphere/DB2 conglomerate.
>  
>
back to the future - os/400 (system 36/38), and mumps, and the apple 
lisa, and the prime thing as well...... to mention a couple of 
approaches to this problem.

>Does all that mean no middle layer? My guess is, not as we know it
>today: you've got a general purpose data manager and a "client" and a
>general purpose network.  The only value add a separate and distinct
>middle layer can add is transformation.  (I'm assuming reliable
>delivery etc. is now part of the "network").  This sort of suggests
>that the middle layer as we often think about it today (transaction
>management) is actually an orthogonal concern to the DB/client
>relationship; no one building applications should be worrying about it
>in the long term.
>
>If all this is true, one interesting result is that one can expect the
>companies building "Enterprise Service Buses" to be acquired and
>disappear... Oh, and XSLT, or it it's next incarnation, will be even
>more valuable than ever ;-)
>
>  
>

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• References:
  • Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by Date: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Previous by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Next by thread: Re: Jim Gray article on Next Generation Databases
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread