Re: Storing objects in a RDBMS?

damorgan wrote:

> Obviously. But can you read the content? Go back to the link I posted and read the
> one and only paragraph. My offer was serious.

Did you read the one and only paragraph in mine? Since the crux of this discussion seems to be disagreement over multiple interpretations of the word "object," your providing a link to a page talking about your personal qualifications seemed rather bizarre.

> You want to do a search at google be my guest. Don't just speculate ... do it. <g>

What I actually said was "at oracle.com," not at Google. And I did. Every one I saw talked about storing "objects" in the OO sense of the word, not the LOB sense. So while you many conclude that "storing objects" necessarily means BLOBs, and feel justified in saying so because "this is an Oracle forum" (even though the fact that the thread is cross-posted means your statement is technically incorrect), it would seem there is no foundation for that conclusion or its justification. Nor is pointing out your laurels any justification, as I already pointed out.

And back to the original point, the first post in this thread asked about "storing objects in a relational database." While I admit that he MAY have been using "object" in the LOB sense, as you concluded, I think it's far more likely that he was using the word to mean the storage of objects he creates in Java (which he said he is using). As Pablo pointed out, -all- the major products store BLOBs.

Larry Coon
University of California
larry_at_assist.org
and lmcoon_at_home.com Received on Thu Apr 04 2002 - 15:26:34 CST