Re: Oracle Object Oriented Model. Any hints?

From: Alex Filonov <afilonov_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 10:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <336da121.0208290907.74cfc49e@posting.google.com>

Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon-verwijderdit.nl> wrote in message news:<ruhrmu4hslt912dcke3ifcuiqumv3e6e3m_at_4ax.com>...
> On 28 Aug 2002 21:40:41 -0700, sherlock_at_mailmetoday.com (Sherlock)
> wrote:
>
> >However, I am very open however to your valuable opinions. Can someone
> >give your opinion why or why i should not move to the OO Model?.
>
>
> IMHO, OO has already proven not to be the ultimate panache to solve
> everyones problems. In the past the problem was not knowing how to
> functionally decompose a large algorithm, now the problem has shifted
> to the OO design.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>

I want to add my $.02.
OO model inconsistent with relational model. If you want proof of that, just read relational model definitions and compare them to OO realisation in Oracle. What is called 1st normal form in Relational theory is actually the very basis of it. And any composit column in the table is against 1st NF. All attempts to marry these two models are clumsy, including Oracle's.

> To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Received on Thu Aug 29 2002 - 12:07:22 CDT