Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:53:12 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:

>Consider an RDBMS supporting a large suite of database
>application programs created in any programming langauge.
>What formal relations exist between said suite of program
>objects and the RM of the data?

The inexistence of relationships between the RM and the applications does not mean that the RM is useless for developing applications. It only means that it is not being used.

>>It would be very useful to include
>> relational extensions in the application programming languages.
>
>
>Yes, that would be nice.
>but is this happening on any scale at present?

At a tiny scale, and this is sad.

>>>, and thus is restricted in
>>>issues involving the coordination of both data and program
>>>objects.
>>
>> This is an implementation issue and it has nothing to do with the
>> Relational Model.
>
>
>This is a chicken and egg straw man. Surely the seeds of
>the implementation are in the model prior to implementation,
>just as the model is continually re-invoked to as the data
>structures evolve over time, well after implementation.

We don't need a new model to coordinate the applications with the DBMS, it is rather easy to do that with the existent computational models.

>As is your traditional insistence to split theory
>and implementation such that one is not really
>concerned with the other.

What I mean is that we can integrate both things when we want. There is not any theoretical problem.

>>We only need to integrate database variables in the
>> applications.
>
>
>This is an efficient mechanism, and may be
>milestones ahead of other solutions, but
>it is not the end of the road to an
>improvement of the current theory.

But to integrate database objects with programming objects is all we need to integrate database objects with programming objects :)

Regards Received on Thu Apr 14 2005 - 12:48:26 CEST