Posted by Geoff Berrow on 03/28/07 10:05

Message-ID: <8OmdncdWe6syIJTbnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com> from Jerry
Stuckle contained the following:

>> Why? Why would I *want* to put non-relational data in a relational
>> database? Why would I *want* to use a database as a filesystem?
>>
>> Just saying "it works fine" is not enough.
>>
>
>Because it IS RELATIONAL. It is related to other data in the database.

If there were functions that could extract meta data about the image
(filename, size, type etc) then I think you would have a point. As it
is, you are simply using the database /as/ a filesystem when it clearly
isn't. Now that's not to say that that is a bad idea necessarily, I can
see arguments for adopting this approach (portability and ease of
maintenance for example) as well as arguments against.
>
>A typical idiot spouting off about something about which she knows nothing.

Ad hominem remarks do nothing for your argument Jerry.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Back to original message]