Re: Changing Object Type in OODB

From: Werner Purrer <werpu_at_my-deja.com>
Date: 4 Jun 2001 07:21:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3b1b7b7a.19753904_at_news-east.newscene.com>

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:11:12 +0200, "Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote:

>> Not really but those things also occur in OODBS to a heavy degree. And
>> even to the worse you can´t that easily change your db scheme once you
>> have it nailed down inside the db.
>
>This prejudice about the rigidness of object databases is widely spread.
>Indeed it is well-founded by the difficulties most object databases have
>with schema changes.
>
>I am very positive that we have not seen the end of development here.
>
I´m glad to hear that, I worked with a very rigid oodb for years and we had lots of trouble with that kind of problem. A change in the object hirarchy meant:

a) a change in the hirarchy itself
b) a change in the schema files which accompanied the db
c) a change in the make file
d) a change in the queries which rely on the object hirarchy (aka

querys with class casting inside)
d) and sometimes a change in the code as well cause the main problem was that in this oodb system there wasn´t a clear distinction between db and code an advantage relational systems have to a certain degree. I agree this is not inherent to oodbs themselves but to current OODB-Java connection standards and their implementations.

I don´t want to damn oodbs here they have their positive and their negative sides same goes for RDBMS.

Werner

-- 
Memory Dragon
A soundcard, a SCSI controller, an ATI card, a mpeg hardware,
an UATA100 Raid controller, a satellite card and the system still 
runs stable. Who said there arent any wonders in this world?

Received on Mon Jun 04 2001 - 14:21:10 CEST