On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Steve Lihn <stevel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure how to comment on this concept. I guess it infers that the database > and application are no longer loosely coupled, but now strongly coupled. > I guess too, that java developers will vote yes, while database architect > and DBA will vote no.
It's a very old debate that has been had over and over on the Internet. It stems primarily from a clash of cultures. > In the "traditional" sense, enterprise data is the soul of a business. Data > has to stand by itself with reasonable information (primary key and foreign > key) to interpret itself. But it appears now with the Mongo approach, the > data store (I won't even call it database) is a byproduct of the mapping > class. Without reading the mapping classes, one can barely understand the > data. How is this going to be accepted by large enterprises? I put a big > question mark on it. I don't think that large enterprises (by which I mean IT departments of non-technical companies) are the first wave of likely customers for NoSQL databases. I also don't think that Cassandra and MongoDB differ enough on this issue to think that an enterprise IT department would prefer one or the other on the basis of it. Neither has foreign keys or transactions. Both shift work from the datastore to the application. If that's not what you want, neither is a good choice. Paul Prescod
