Re: Object support in the relational model??

Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> > Maybe inheritance is the wrong approach and we need a
> > more loosely coupled system of dynamic delegates.
> > (Tables and relations? :-) )
>
> Carl, after so much time you are still mixing different levels as
> almost everyone in the OO world.

Indeed, that's what I am doing and I am proud to be able to produce practical results without loosing time, worrying about the theoretical flaws in the basic building block that I use: the programming language.

My approach is:
"We have Java and we are using it. How can I persist Java objects in the simplest and most efficient way possible?" ...no more.

No worries about theories, no worries about separating methods from data, no worries about what others are doing or what other "highly educated" people are saying.
...people that produce tons of paper that are never used for anything productive in practice.

> The point is that OO is programming, is physical implementation of an
> algorithm. OTOH, the relational model is a logical model. If you
> want to implement the relational model with an OO language, go ahead;
> if you want to create OO programs that use relational data, your call.
> But don't try to conspurcate the relational model with OO fuzzyness
> of thought and implementation details. Keep the physical and logical
> levels separate, by all means.

Implementation always is a representation of a logical model and for a practicioner it is the most relevant one, and it is the easiest to understand since it implicitely describes itself completely.

Kind regards,
Carl

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