Re: TMQL: Direct (super|sub)types?
"Andrew S. Townley" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5 Mar 2011, at 12:47 PM, Robert Barta wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:57:50AM +0000, Andrew S. Townley wrote: > >> I guess because I'm seeing it both as an implementor (something I'm >> going to have to parse and translate into existing query APIs) and >> more along the lines of SQL where it would be limited to DDL and >> DML, but any serious logic constructions would be either defined by >> some other beast, e.g. PL/SQL or handled by the host language. > > Well, in the case of TMQL we cannot expect the "host" language to be > another query language which takes some of the querying burden. Nor > should we actually, as it is a performance bottleneck if there is too > much communication between the TMQL processor and the host language. > > Obviously. Sure. I guess I didn't state it very clearly because I was in a hurry to get to my meeting. I was using the parallel of the logic aspects of PL/SQL vs. SQL as an example of [insert host language X with embedded TMQL support] vs. TMQL. I didn't mean to imply that you would mix TMQL into something like SQL, but stranger things have happened with ORDBMS's. There's no logical reason why you couldn't have a TM-based function embedded in a hybrid store that could be surfaced and called using SQL stored procedure calling semantics or vice versa. Now that I write it, there's probably some real valid use cases there too. Sorry for any potential confusion. ast -- Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]> http://atownley.org