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

From: Alfredo Novoa <>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:03:45 GMT
Message-ID: <>

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:33:27 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

>So, the 1GB has nothing at all to do with using a class to define a Relation
>type, such as "Person" -- is that correct?

It is not possible to use a class to define a relation type, but the 1GB has nothing to do with defining a class such as "Person".

> Then if a variable is declared
>to be of the type Person, does the 1GB refer to that situation?

No, it refers to the products that mix classes and tables.

You only have to review the first chapter of TTM to see that.

>I guess I'm
>asking for more precision in stating what practical is being identified with
>the 1GB. It seems like it is a flap about how one person says, for example
>"relation" when they really mean "relation variable" (translated to OO

It is about existing products, but I don't use such products. Fortunately OODBMSs are almost dead, but it is probable that we still can find the 1GB in some OR Mappers.

>the "cause of many confusions". My question is where the blunder really is.
>I think I posted a question on this a year or so ago too and I still don't
>see a practical blunder

Because it is probable that you are not using a product that makes such blunder.

>Date seems to argue that there is a practical problem in this mix. Do you
>think there is?

Of course there is, but only if you use an OODBMS or an OR Mapper.

Regards Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 11:03:45 CET

Original text of this message