Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:18:11 GMT
Message-ID: <nzJpd.1451$wU1.144455@phobos.telenet-ops.be>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:32:50 GMT, Jan Hidders
> <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:
>
>

>>>>I simply cannot believe that you do not see what is problematic about 
>>>>this type of argument. Seriously.
>>>
>>>So what is problematic?
>>
>>It's irrelevant.

>
> Then I can continue to think the same without worry :)

Sure. If you are not worried by incorrect arguments....

>>The question that must be answered is whether there are 
>>any practical problems if you redefine the notion of type such that it 
>>does include relational variables.

>
> The practical problems exist. I supose that you have readen the
> section of TTM that describes some of these practical problems, like a
> return to chasing pointers.

Yes, and as anybody who has actually done some research on OODBMSs knows that is blatant nonsense.

>>>It's well known that the DBMSs that tried to treat relational
>>>variables as types were a fiasco.
>>
>>It is also well known that these were not technical problems.

>
> Indeed, these were model problems :)

Nope. There were also no model problems.

Jan Hidders

Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 11:18:11 CST