Hey dicytea, thanks for getting that blogging app up. Our users love it. Hey, I was talking to John, and he said he's got some guest columns he wants you to throw up there. Just some blog posts from thinkers he likes that he thinks would be a good fit for our site. Can you throw up some of those?
What do you mean they need to be users of the site? They're just some people whose posts we want to feature. No, they shouldn't need to log in. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with it?
</BossVoice>
Oops, turns out the rule "all blog post authors are users of the site" was actually just a volatile business rule after all.
Yes, and isn't it wonderful that you get an error message when you try to change a business rule, forcing you to properly encode the new rule instead?
A lot of these types of scenarios are missing the fact that, without these enforcements in the database, sooner or later a developer is going to make a change that violates an existing business rule without realising that they just broke a rule!
Rules change. We know this. What is valuable is being told that some new rule conflicts with an existing rule.
If you don't enforce the business rules in the database, how do you know when a new rule conflicts with some existing rule?
Hey dicytea, thanks for getting that blogging app up. Our users love it. Hey, I was talking to John, and he said he's got some guest columns he wants you to throw up there. Just some blog posts from thinkers he likes that he thinks would be a good fit for our site. Can you throw up some of those?
What do you mean they need to be users of the site? They're just some people whose posts we want to feature. No, they shouldn't need to log in. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with it?
</BossVoice>
Oops, turns out the rule "all blog post authors are users of the site" was actually just a volatile business rule after all.