Re: Object support in the relational model??

From: Carl Rosenberger <>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:43:45 +0200
Message-ID: <acvj9e$32a$05$>

George Weer wrote:
> > Maybe inheritance is the wrong approach and we need a
> > more loosely coupled system of dynamic delegates.
> > (Tables and relations? :-) )
> 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?

No, I am saying:
"All you need to do is program classes and store objects."

The anwer I usually get is:
"This doesn't work since we have different applications that access our data. They need different inheritance hierarchies and objects of the same class need to behave different."

I can read this argument out of Dan's original statement, three postings further up....

| But usual OODB practice is to treat relations | as classes, which really obscures the entire relational model

...and my reply was rather indirect:
Nothing is wrong with storing objects as they are. The concepts for object reuse in our programming languages are not good enough yet.

Noone prevents you from mapping objects to objects, if object databases provide query functionality that is good enough.

Kind regards,

Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects -
Received on Tue May 28 2002 - 11:43:45 CEST

Original text of this message