[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAP: Badly formed SQL
> I think that all this SQL legal and SQL vs SQL-like traffic is just
> spinning wheels since its not something the WG has agreed on. Perhaps
> once I catch up w/the backlog from the past few days Ill find it all
> moot but I want it to be clear that we never did accept SQL (any
> version) as the query lingua despite claims to the contrary.
I was the one that accepted the assignment for the query language
in Dallas. Yes - there was debate as you have pointed out in the notes
that you have found. However even the IMC archives don't seem to
have all of the email - I have looked.
My current argument includes "NO ONE ELSE PROPOSED ANYTHING FOR THREE
YEARS" - except me. That is one of the reasons that I believe the
consensus was as I stated. Now as you know we don't have to reach 100%
agreement. But NO ONE ELSE proposed anything. WE went through
the first 0-5 revisions of CAP and there was only SOME debate
on this topic. NO ONE proposed any other query language including
you. Until a couple of days ago when John posted his thoughts
about an XML-query. Frank and I developed this query language by
sitting down in Orlando for two half days and we presented it to
the the WG then. We provided updates in the following IETF meetings.
Some did suggest that it be SQL-like, but they proposed nothing
substantial - and NO written proposals that anyone else could read.
The original Orlando proposal was something like this:
QUERY:<select clause>;<from clause>;<optional-where-clause>
Each time we tried to expand the above format, people kept
saying "In sql I can ...". So we altered it to be SQL. In Oslo
I again got the green light. People seemed to want it to be SQL
if at all possible - but NOT require the CS to be an SQL database.
And the quotes you point out I remember as being "Only if SQL
does not work, will we consider SQL-like" - And that is exactly
what we are doing now. Even now when we are trying to determine
the exact features we want, people over time keep adding needs
for the query language.
This did not just spring up over night. It has been in process
for about three years and only now are people *thankfully*
giving it serious thought.
The WG talked us into having it more like SQL. The IETF members
that participated in other working groups, including LDAP and WebDav
urged us to adopt a more SQL query language because of their
experiences and the pain they went through to develop a query language.
I know this because I networked at the IETF meeting and asked
the people that had or were developing query languages what they
By searching those same archives for sender=kahn and body
contains 'query' or 'sql', I can not find that you had any
objections to the query language as proposed (until recently) and
I looked back to March 26 1996. Not that you can't object. But
that has been the proposal since about Orlando (Dec 1998).
Often silence is the best indicator of consensus - and on
the topic of query language - we had suggestions for improvement,
and NO counter proposals for three years - looks like
concenses to me :-)
I think that the recent debates have resulted in a happy
medium. And that we are getting closer to shipping CAP.
org:INET-Consulting LLC <http://INET-Consulting.com
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway #266;Idaho Falls;ID;83402;
title:Chief Executive Manager