Re: Object support in the relational model??

From: George Weer <>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:59:39 +0100
Message-ID: <actl56$sdo72$>

Are you saying that to use the properties of objects that is polymorhism, inheritance, adt's methods etc
mean that any referential integrity is jepardised? (im thinking mainly of inheritance) but through inheritance with adts for example defining a
person as a class and a child as a person doesnt integrity become easier to manage? sure there would be some grey water relating a child to a car becuase a child would interit all of those properties of a person but thats the beauty of OO.

im sorry i just cant see the problem.

i take it this is the third manifesto: issues/9503/

"Carl Rosenberger" <> wrote in message news:acthbt$3q4$06$
> Dan Muller wrote:
> > But usual OODB practice is to treat
> > relations as classes, which really obscures the entire relational model
> > hides its most useful features from application programmers. Coupled
> > the practice of moving database constraint logic out of the database
> > and into the objects, this approach can be a disaster. (That's another
> > unintended invitation to a flamefest, btw. :> )
> Indeed. :-)
> I could answer:
> "Moving object business logic from objects to the database
> usually ends up in a disaster."
> (please ignore)
> A more useful answer:
> Maybe we are still missing the right approach in our
> object-oriented programming languages, as we know them
> today. Indeed it is very difficult to come up with a
> design, that lasts to be reused with multiple different
> applications.
> Maybe inheritance is the wrong approach and we need a
> more loosely coupled system of dynamic delegates.
> (Tables and relations? :-) )
> Kind regards,
> Carl
> ---
> Carl Rosenberger
> db4o - database for objects -
Received on Mon May 27 2002 - 17:59:39 CEST

Original text of this message