Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"

fredrik_bertilsson_at_passagen.se (Fredrik Bertilsson) wrote in message news:<31f7e57d.0410022129.9877a38_at_posting.google.com>...

> Yes, I know this is a common scenario. But I think this problem is
> caused by a design mistake. OO purists are claiming that the object
> model should be design before the (or without respect to) the database
> schema.

They can't be more wrong. The database design is intended to substitute the primitive "object model".

> If you had designed the object model by yourself, would you
> really design a model that you have described? Anyway I would make (or
> generate) one class for each table and use SQL queries for retrieving
> records/objects.

It is completely useless to generate a class for each table. If you can work directly with the tables you don't need the classes.

To manage the database through these classes is like to play piano wearing boxing gloves.

> Why can't tables and records be considered as
> "objects"?

They can, because "everithing is an object", but this is not a very useful consideration.

Regards Received on Sun Oct 03 2004 - 13:04:22 CEST