From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada package registry? Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 23:56:11 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <02241ec4-0f95-4f63-9abc-092f167eb59e@googlegroups.com> <56af17b7$0$301$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <56b06eb8$0$301$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1454483747.2785.135.camel@obry.net> Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:53:17 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="29b8650774960281308dc95b48c0b0d7"; logging-data="21118"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19svVHzgx3YfHXAGPW5Z8nanoZghqv73pA=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:JwjKPqA66XwKNkbMittv7BkkxDE= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29415 Date: 2016-02-07T23:56:11+01:00 List-Id: On 07.02.16 20:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > An access to execute SELECT on a DB table is no different to an ability to view the table in Excel or any other program. This kind of access is a no-go area in some organisations. No one, including own employees, may know the names of tables; or even learn if there is an RDMBS at all. Let alone enjoy the privileges of learning about the particulars of the databases. An Excel table is a passive data entity, and a document(!). It is an entity that is separate from the DBMS and therefore leaks nothing about the database, and imposes no risk of a broken security setup. Shit happens, some want to avoid that by putting databases behind walls. Database programs will produce documents to be forwarded, after checking and signing. You could call these considerations "abstraction" between commercial entities or other organisations, or individuals. I'd be very surprised if I could go to my bank and ask them about their database schema, and be told it! Or ask Google about the ad network's databases from which they produce the CSVs that they send, and be given read-only access. It is at this level of organisational design that I meant to put the analogy of dropping Ada's "private". "Body" could mean, by analogy, that you will get to see something at some interface level, but no bodies! As a user of the spec, you'd know absolutely nothing about bodies, compiled or not. Database schemas, like bodies, can be declared to be part of corporate property, by the powers that be. Even interfaces can be part of corporate property: I understand that some legal initiative is on its way in order to get a decision on whether a collection of type's interfaces (names, patterns, etc. of a framework) can be put under copyright law or some such. It takes some effort to produce one, after all, so the logical consequence from BA theory is obvious: prevent copying OS interfaces, for example, by disallowing the use of the same names in APIs.