Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?

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

From: Jim Melton <Jim.Melton_at_Technologist.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:39:11 GMT
Message-ID: <3BB7F36D.4E5D00F0@Technologist.com>

Bob Badour wrote:

> "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.

What are the fundamental features of a language "raised" to the level of the DBMS? How are "non-relational object databases" lowering the DBMS to the level of the (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.

The heart of your arguments in the past seem to have been centered on the notion of physical independence promised by the relational *model*. Why do you suppose SQL dbms vendors have failed to provide it? Could it be that every level of indirection incurs a performance penalty and they cannot build performant systems with complete independence?

If it is fundamental to the relatioal model, is it possible that your relational model cannot be implemented in a commercially viable product?

> > 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.

Care to elaborate? What would you see as 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.

Technical superiority (note we're still debating that) has little to do with market dominance. My proof?

Microsoft.

--
Jim Melton, novice guru             | So far as we know, our
e-mail: Jim.Melton_at_Technologist.com | computer has never had
v-mail: (303) 971-3846              | an undetected error.



Received on Sun Sep 30 2001 - 23:39:11 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US