Re: Transformation of object modells to relational structures

"Matt K. Maurer" <zmkm0g_at_amoco.com> wrote:

>I have to admit that I am still naive to the whole OO thing. But I think
>that we can agree that there are different TYPES of OO models and these
>types exist because of the different target databases used to support the
>such models.

Nope, the different types exist because of the differences in (what I call) the 'base philosophy' of the modeling paradigm.

The most fundamental, and thereby notable, difference being:

'To Be' or 'To Do' (that is the question)

In other words, do you design your automated solution based on the fundamentals of existence (such as what is done in ERD modeling and Shlaer-Mellor object modeling) or do you design your automated solution based on 'behaviour' and 'responsibility'.

Or to put it a third way: Do you believe that something that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flys like a duck and sounds like a duck is always to be treated as a duck? Or do you believe that only ducks that appear in nature truely ARE ducks and only they should be treated as a duck?

(sorry, need one more example) Do birds fly because they are birds or are birds birds because they can fly ? (this example is way oversimplified, and has too many expections to be a perfect example, but it gets the fundamental question across)

So, the question you ask yourself is: are you Idealistic (follow Plato) or are you Behaviouristic (follow Aristotle). If you are Idealistic - you would be a more natural ERD modeler. If you are behafiouristic you would be a better OO modeler (in the style of Smalltalk-like OO).

'Keystroke'
KeystrkTX_at_AOL.COM Received on Thu Jun 06 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST