On 07/22/11 4:11 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Karl Nack wrote:
>> I've been following a few blogs
>> (http://database-programmer.blogspot.com/,
>> http://thehelsinkideclaration.blogspot.com/) that make a very compelling
>> argument, in my opinion, to move as much business/transactional logic as
>> possible into the database, so that client applications become little
>> more than moving data into and out of the database using a well-defined
>> API, most commonly (but not necessarily) through the use of stored
>> procedures.
>
> I strongly agree with that design philosophy. One principle is that
> the buck stops with the database and that regardless of what the
> application does, any business logic should be enforced by the
> database itself. Another principle is to treat the database like a
> code library, where the tables are its internal variables and its
> public API is stored procedures. Using stored procedures means you
> can interact with the database from your application in the same way
> your application interacts with itself, meaning with parameterized
> routine calls.
the alternative 'modern' architecture is to implement the business logic
in a webservices engine that sits in front of the database, and only use
stored procedures for things that get significant performance boost
where that is needed to meet your performance goals.. Only this
business logic is allowed to directly query the operational database.
The business logic in this middle tier still relies on the database
server for data integrity and such. The presentation layer is
implemented either in a conventional client application or in a
webserver (not to be confused with the webservices).... so you have
user -> browser -> webserver/presentation layer -> webservices/business
logic -> database
The main rationale for this sort of design pattern is that large complex
business logic implemented in SQL stored procedures can be rather
difficult to develop and maintain
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast