Re: Object support in the relational model??

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.

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

Kind regards,
Carl

---
Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com