Re: Oracle Object Oriented Model. Any hints?

<<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>>>

Amen to that. It may not only totally violates the relational model but moving to a OO ssytem is simply not worth the pain it takes. From what i see of the syntax, any decent programmer will go insane in trying to understand an OO structure. I have decided not to implement it because the benefits (resusability) is not greater than the pain of not being able to do a select * from emp and getting meaningful data.

Karthik

afilonov_at_yahoo.com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121.0208290907.74cfc49e_at_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 Fri Aug 30 2002 - 22:43:03 CDT