Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?

"Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote in message news:9njddh$gl2$01$1_at_news.t-online.com...
> A very tight binding to programming languages can make products superior
for
> certain usecases, since mechanisms need less overhead.

I am not against a programming language that is tightly bound to the DBMS -- I think such a product has great potential merit. However, I suggest that improving the programming language and raising it to the level of the DBMS surpasses regressing the DBMS and lowering it to the level of an existing programming language.

> This *is* the domain
> of todays object databases although it has little to do with the
underlying
> storage system.

I disagree. The domain of today's (non-relational) object databases is ignorance and desperation. It has everything to do with the underlying storage system and with the failure of SQL dbms vendors to provide adequate physical independence.

> A tight language binding could very well also be part of a
> relational database. You called it "middleware" in a thread some time ago,
> but the more a vendor implements himself, the more efficient a system is
> bound to be.

Ultimately, the most performant middleware is written by the DBMS vendor, but this is not necessarily the best or most needed middleware.

> Some 200 postings ago I mentioned that relational databases and object
> databases will converge. Your posting suggests that you see a chance also.

Some 200 postings ago, I mentioned that relational databases already are object databases and need no convergence. The non-relational products, such as your product, have a dim future. Received on Sun Sep 30 2001 - 01:50:18 CEST