Re: Generic Modeling

In message <a6e74506.0201041141.6943dde1_at_posting.google.com>, James <jraustin1_at_hotmail.com> writes
>> > > First, 100 randomly arranged objects are not very useful.
>> > Maybe not but sometimes reality is that way and chaos is the norm not
>> > order
>>
>> This statement is pretty fatalistic. Can you provide an example of a
>> realistic situation comprising 100 objects that have meaning when
>> arranged in any arbitrary configuration of relationships?
>
>Different kinds of toys or things in a kid's room. Some are on the
>shelf. Some are on the bed, some on the floor, some on the table, some
>in the hamper, etc. I am saying that it is easier for an oodb to
>represent/manipulate complex/variable/deep hierarchal data than for
>rdbs. The 100 randomly arranged object is at the extreme end at yet an
>oodb like XDb deals with it the same way it handle any other better
>origanized data. In rdbs you would need to either using many tables or
>resort to generic modelling in a few tables. This leads me to believe
>an oodb models data more generically than rdbs.

It's trivially easy to store generic data in relational form, just create table with three columns; Object, Property and Value.

This type of structure is useful when the database designer knows that they don't know enough about the data the database will hold. Those situations are rare.

-- 
Bernard Peek
bap_at_shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti