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

From: Ja Lar <ingen_at_mail.her>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:54:02 +0100
Message-ID: <41b6a513$0$246$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> ...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis"...
>> Is the issue that in OO there is no new coined term to
>>distinquish between a Relation specified as a type and a Relational
>>variable?
>
> No, but the complete mess in the OO terminology is the cause of many
> confusions.

A myth, apparently based on an early view on OO not in sync with present understanding of the field. On the same footing as many OOists misunderstanding of relational databases: "If you don't quite know the subject, dislike it, or better: coin it useless and without real value". But the value of a (academic) subject should not be measured on how it is understood or represented by those who has lesser knowledge on the subject.

A class is (also) equivalent with an Entity (as in ER-modelling). Now, make the usual mapping from ER to relational model.... Received on Wed Dec 08 2004 - 00:54:02 CST