 | |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Check out the IDC paper on U2 -
09-13-2006
, 08:42 PM
|
On 13 Sep 2006 16:31:33 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Folks - As far as I can determine, there is not, nor has there ever been an officially sanctioned IT meaning for the word "embedded", from Codd, God, Rick, Dick or Tony ... or anybody else. There is a dictionary definition, of course, but in the use IBM made of it.....???? You can all have your own interpretations if you like.. But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... |
you be able to ignore it? Tony didn't think that Chandru should talk
about the topic he picked either. My own preference is that people not
talk about what it is that they don't want others to talk about ;-)
My interest is less in what a precise definition would be, but what
people would infer about dbms's that are described as "embedded." I
wouldn't mind knowing how others define it as that helps get at the
question of inferences.
Cheers! --dawn
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bruce Nichol wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 16:31:33 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Folks - As far as I can determine, there is not, nor has there ever been an officially sanctioned IT meaning for the word "embedded", from Codd, God, Rick, Dick or Tony ... or anybody else. There is a dictionary definition, of course, but in the use IBM made of it.....???? You can all have your own interpretations if you like.. But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... But, Bruce, what if others would appreciate such a discussion -- would you be able to ignore it? Tony didn't think that Chandru should talk about the topic he picked either. My own preference is that people not talk about what it is that they don't want others to talk about ;-) |
ones they promulgate) are verboten or a waste of time/bandwidth? Here's a
radical thought: Just Don't Read Anything You Don't Want To.
C.
Quote:
|
My interest is less in what a precise definition would be, but what people would infer about dbms's that are described as "embedded." I wouldn't mind knowing how others define it as that helps get at the question of inferences. Cheers! --dawn |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... |
thread (people don't want to play)
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Dawn - one prob with the article is the "Sponsored by IBM" at the top, i have shown it to some people and they say, "well it will say that wont it ....". Rgds Symeon. |
(in any Industry) that aren't sponsored by someone - and YES, I do
believe that the people that produce the white paper are therefore
unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.
However, having a resource like this available at least gives you
"something", which is better than an empty cart.
Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage > Better by Design!
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... But, Bruce, what if others would appreciate such a discussion -- would you be able to ignore it? Tony didn't think that Chandru should talk about the topic he picked either. My own preference is that people not talk about what it is that they don't want others to talk about ;-) My interest is less in what a precise definition would be, but what people would infer about dbms's that are described as "embedded." I wouldn't mind knowing how others define it as that helps get at the question of inferences. |
topic". I was saying exactly what Bruce is saying, this is a nit
that's unworthy of a pick. (Pun intended) People can talk about
whatever the hell they please.
On-topic note: MITS, 1mage, and TigerLogic all use embedded MV
databases which may or may not be the same as the database being used
for the end-user's business application. The "embedded" notion here
is that you do not have access to the database for your own queries
but that the database is sold as part of their solution for their own
exclusive use. You're buying a solution, not a database. They should
be able to change _their_ database of choice without affecting how you
as an end-user use their product.
Yes, there are many definitions for embedded. It is what someone
claims it to be, like "multidimensional", "integrated", or
"state-of-the-art".
T
#16
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
"dawn" wrote: Bruce wrote: But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... But, Bruce, what if others would appreciate such a discussion -- would you be able to ignore it? Tony didn't think that Chandru should talk about the topic he picked either. My own preference is that people not talk about what it is that they don't want others to talk about ;-) My interest is less in what a precise definition would be, but what people would infer about dbms's that are described as "embedded." I wouldn't mind knowing how others define it as that helps get at the question of inferences. Dawn, I did NOT "think that Chandru should (not) talk about the topic". I was saying exactly what Bruce is saying, this is a nit that's unworthy of a pick. |
even if the person originating the topic takes offense and isn't
pleased to have their topic squashed like that. An alternative would be
to ignore the topic if it doesn't interest you.
Anyway, you don't have to defend it to me, I'm one of the people who
will like you anyway, Tony ;-) (and Bruce, and Chandru, and Ross, and
....)
Quote:
|
(Pun intended) People can talk about whatever the hell they please. |
Quote:
|
On-topic note: MITS, 1mage, and TigerLogic all use embedded MV databases which may or may not be the same as the database being used for the end-user's business application. The "embedded" notion here is that you do not have access to the database for your own queries but that the database is sold as part of their solution for their own exclusive use. You're buying a solution, not a database. They should be able to change _their_ database of choice without affecting how you as an end-user use their product. |
that users work with your api's or interfaces and not those of the
embedded product. I'm sure some use Pick products that way, but my
experiences with PI and U2 have been that developers (users of the
product) and sometimes even end-users interact directly with the
product. That is why it doesn't typically meet my
definition/impression of "embedded."
Quote:
|
Yes, there are many definitions for embedded. It is what someone claims it to be, like "multidimensional", "integrated", or "state-of-the-art". |
I don't mind using marketing terms when I believe what it is that they
convey. I'm not good at referring to MV products as "embedded
databases" at this point, however. Maybe there is some meaning of the
word that I'm missing, however. Cheers! --dawn
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 13 Sep 2006 16:31:33 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Folks - As far as I can determine, there is not, nor has there ever been an officially sanctioned IT meaning for the word "embedded", from Codd, God, Rick, Dick or Tony ... or anybody else. There is a dictionary definition, of course, but in the use IBM made of it.....???? You can all have your own interpretations if you like.. But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... Glen B wrote: "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1158174653.860523.314270 (AT) e3g2000cwe (DOT) googlegroups.com... Dawn, An embedded technology means that the technology does not require direct interaction with a user or administrator. I thought it also implied that you cannot use the embedded entity in standard procedures, such as queries, without going through the wrapper (application/s) in which it is embedded. I definitely could be mistaken. It exists for another embedded or layered product, or for the hardware around/beside it. If you want to get nit picky about embedded designs, by your logic there is no such thing as an embedded technology at all. If you have the skills and equipment, you can touch everything in an embedded system I should add "as an standard user" perhaps? and make it do things outside the factory's scope. Such a statement includes hacking firmware with an EEPROM reader/writer. If it's an embedded web server, then it is preconfigured to work with a specific application or piece of hardware. A well-informed person may still be able to modify the factory setup to do other things, but that doesn't mean the overall solution isn't "embedded". Agreed. I am talking about the normal use of the embedded thing would be through the wrapper to that thing. That then sounds restrictive for a DBMS, perhaps indicating that you cannot query the data "directly" but must go through the wrapper to do that. So, an embedded database does not sound like a generally useful database for most broad use/enterprise purposes. Make sense? --dawn snip Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURY NSW Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... |
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 13 Sep 2006 16:31:33 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Folks - As far as I can determine, there is not, nor has there ever been an officially sanctioned IT meaning for the word "embedded", from Codd, God, Rick, Dick or Tony ... or anybody else. There is a dictionary definition, of course, but in the use IBM made of it.....???? You can all have your own interpretations if you like.. But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... Glen B wrote: "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1158174653.860523.314270 (AT) e3g2000cwe (DOT) googlegroups.com... Dawn, An embedded technology means that the technology does not require direct interaction with a user or administrator. I thought it also implied that you cannot use the embedded entity in standard procedures, such as queries, without going through the wrapper (application/s) in which it is embedded. I definitely could be mistaken. It exists for another embedded or layered product, or for the hardware around/beside it. If you want to get nit picky about embedded designs, by your logic there is no such thing as an embedded technology at all. If you have the skills and equipment, you can touch everything in an embedded system I should add "as an standard user" perhaps? and make it do things outside the factory's scope. Such a statement includes hacking firmware with an EEPROM reader/writer. If it's an embedded web server, then it is preconfigured to work with a specific application or piece of hardware. A well-informed person may still be able to modify the factory setup to do other things, but that doesn't mean the overall solution isn't "embedded". Agreed. I am talking about the normal use of the embedded thing would be through the wrapper to that thing. That then sounds restrictive for a DBMS, perhaps indicating that you cannot query the data "directly" but must go through the wrapper to do that. So, an embedded database does not sound like a generally useful database for most broad use/enterprise purposes. Make sense? --dawn snip Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURY NSW Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... |
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeded_computer The terminology for embeded(typo??) technology was paralleled to layered and wrapped software products a long time ago. Is there a fully and officially sanctioned global IT meaning for MV? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it's not 100% valid. Glen "Bruce Nichol" <reverse_ecurb (AT) taloncs (DOT) com.au> wrote in message news:nuahg2lgkaa6j5p3o2gtdo9kli54jifd8u (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On 13 Sep 2006 16:31:33 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Folks - As far as I can determine, there is not, nor has there ever been an officially sanctioned IT meaning for the word "embedded", from Codd, God, Rick, Dick or Tony ... or anybody else. There is a dictionary definition, of course, but in the use IBM made of it.....???? You can all have your own interpretations if you like.. But, please, no 4-week sojourn through the travails of what each of us thinks it does, might, or should mean. Please? There is just not that much divergence of opinion..... Glen B wrote: "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1158174653.860523.314270 (AT) e3g2000cwe (DOT) googlegroups.com... Dawn, An embedded technology means that the technology does not require direct interaction with a user or administrator. I thought it also implied that you cannot use the embedded entity in standard procedures, such as queries, without going through the wrapper (application/s) in which it is embedded. I definitely could be mistaken. It exists for another embedded or layered product, or for the hardware around/beside it. If you want to get nit picky about embedded designs, by your logic there is no such thing as an embedded technology at all. If you have the skills and equipment, you can touch everything in an embedded system I should add "as an standard user" perhaps? and make it do things outside the factory's scope. Such a statement includes hacking firmware with an EEPROM reader/writer. If it's an embedded web server, then it is preconfigured to work with a specific application or piece of hardware. A well-informed person may still be able to modify the factory setup to do other things, but that doesn't mean the overall solution isn't "embedded". Agreed. I am talking about the normal use of the embedded thing would be through the wrapper to that thing. That then sounds restrictive for a DBMS, perhaps indicating that you cannot query the data "directly" but must go through the wrapper to do that. So, an embedded database does not sound like a generally useful database for most broad use/enterprise purposes. Make sense? --dawn snip Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURY NSW Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.... |
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.