Re: object oriented vs object relational

"James" <jraustin1_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a6e74506.0206110639.248c7f58_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Both XDb and rdbs are fundamentally based on the same concept of
> > > relation (a related set of information, according to one book).
> >
> > XDb is based on domains -- not relations.
>
> What is the definition of relation?

Open any highschool functions and relations textbook.

> What is the definition of domain?

Again, a highschool mathematics textbook will help you out.

> Which one is better and for what?

Neither is better. Both are necessary and sufficient for database management.

> Which one is the fundamental basis for a database?

Both are.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> OO terminology describes the same in an orthogonal manner:
>
> The object is the fundamental atomic unit.

Is an object a variable or a value? (Or a type? As your recent post in comp.databases seems to indicate. I'm still giggling over that one.)

I guess, if the object is the fundamental atomic unit, objects have no components.

> An object can represents anything: a number, a word, a sound, a
> picture, a movie, a smell, a feeling, an idea, etc.

So an object is a value.

> An object can have instances.

So an object is a type. (No you've got me pointing and laughing.)

> A class is an object that has or can have instances.

So an object is a type.

> An instance is an object that has a class.

So, some objects are neither values nor types nor variables, because some have no class. ???

> This is the basis of XDb

Again, I am astounded that you would so publicly demonstrate the ill-thought and confused basis of your product. Received on Tue Jun 11 2002 - 18:03:39 CEST