Re: Object support in the relational model??

"Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote in message news:<ae76br$1u4$05$1_at_news.t-online.com>...
> Costin Cozianu wrote:
> > Let me tell you gently why. Because you misrepresent your product to
> > be a "database" or a database engine,
>
> Here is a list of features that some smart people have made up to describe
> the mandatory features of a "database":
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node2.html
>
> We support all of them.

Or you might not have actually a decent idea what all those features mean.
From what one can read in the tutorial on your site, this seems to be the case.

Why don't you put the documentation of your product online, so we could form an independent opinion, instead of taking your half-baked advertising ? Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft and others do that.

> > What you have is a persistence engine, therefore you should be posting
> > on comp.lang.java where you might recommend your product to be a
> > serious competitor for java.io.ObjectOutputStream
>
> java.io.ObjectOutputStream does not:
> - provide transactions to allow ACID modifications of persistent objects
> - allow multi-user access
> - allow querying the persistent objects
> - allow a distinguished memory management, to instantiate and free any
> part of the persistent object graph from memory
> - allow accessing objects by ID
> - allow class schema modification
> - provide cascade-on-delete

Yes, it does seem like a serious contender aginst ObjectOutputStream. Not against Oracle though. You fail to see the difference.  

> I could bore you with other dozens of features but I would rather continue
> to call our product a database engine.

Please do bore me on how you provide queries. Is QBE what you call decent query capability ?

Do bore me on exactly how you do provide concurrency control through logical isolation levels, backup and recovery and other DBMS features.

> Please, before you come up with further unqualified insults of the kind, you
> might first take a look at our product to know what you are talking about.
>
>
> > If you want to find out what exactly is a database management system
> > and why your product doesn't qualify as such, you need to go buy and
> > serious database book , instead of wasting the comp.database.*
> > discussions.
>
> If you read the late history of my postings, I was typically in the
> position to reply against rude attacks, accusing me of ignorance.
> ...just like yours.
>
> Personally I would prefer a more friendly tone here.
> I don't think it is a very productive habit to start with insults when
> you don't have any other arguments.

Last time I read your postings some time ago, you referred to a db4o VS SQL bechmark that was so badly written (the Java/Jdbc part), that I could hardly have presumed you as knowledgeable about databases. Your public attitude of misrepresenting your product and the ignorance exposed in your early postings were enough for me to form a judgement (and for some others apparently).

Maybe in the meantime your product has grown and you read more books. You just don't get the presumption of innocence anymore :)

Cheers,
Costin Received on Wed Jun 12 2002 - 20:17:40 CEST