Re: TMQL Proposal

Robert,

On Tuesday 01 February 2005 7:19 am, Robert Barta wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:05:37PM +0000, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > The down-side is that if relational databases could (easily) do,
> > what TMs can do we wouldn't be here.

> Here my theory is that in principle you can do EVERYTHING with
> relational databases, 

Thought, even, but have no source, that this was proven 'fact' as regards TMs 
and RDs

> But, do I really want that? Does it allow me to model (so constrain)
> the data in a way which corresponds to the structure of the data?
> And, if I do, will the database not be killed by the gazillions of
> joins it would have to do for every request?

Yes I think you are saying more eloquently what I rather badly expressed in 
"if relational databases could (easily) do ..." ...

Thanks though for the promise to publish new/revised Perl packages. That 
would be great.

As you say, Robert, "We are all stuck without a QL" and for that reason I 
think this debate is most valuable. I found the following two earlier 
statements each very persuasive:

Lars:  (31 Jan 2005 14:17)
" I'm not sure switching to TMRQL at this point would speed [the creation of 
standardised means of querying] up in any way." 

Kal: (31 Jan 2005 20:23)
"You have a good decade of software development to look forward to then 
:-)" [If one tries bespoke rather than off the shelf, such as say RD-SQL.]

I, for one, certainly do not wish to delay the release of a standard (or at 
least its draft) by 'chatter'. I do though feel we are touching on important 
issues here.

Regards,

	Michael.