Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: One Ring to Bind Them

Re: One Ring to Bind Them

From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:05:42 GMT
Message-ID: <aFAEc.3451$IQ4.1727@attbi_s02>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:cbt4fk$90q$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> news:nnIDc.125667$Sw.113988_at_attbi_s51...
> > > > Perhaps I misunderstand, but MV has only the one kind of
> > > > relationship it is capable of understanding: containment.
>
> I should have read from the top of the topic down, but I now understand what
> you mean. As far as the database itself, without any triggers written, nor
> any application code, the only relationship "between relations" that it
> understands is that of parent-child. --dawn

So what do you do in the face of many:many relationships? I bet it's the same thing that OO does: you have links on one side and links on the other, and manage them in code.

Many to many relationships are one thing that the RM just totally nails. I bring this up not to run a whole "mine's bigger" thing but because I believe that if this entire years-long conversation has a use, it is to highlight the areas where each side succeeds, so that we may begin to work towards a new model that encompases the best of several existing systems.

In programming languages, they are talkin more and more about "multiparadigm." I think we should follow their lead.

Marshall Received on Wed Jun 30 2004 - 10:05:42 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US