Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Is your model/implementation different from RM/T or a step farther ?

"U-gene" <grigoriev-e_at_yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1145445624.303552.164310_at_i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> O Yes!
>
> >>var Shippent base relation { No Integer, WareFrom Warehouse } key {
No };
> >>var Items base relation { No Integer, Article Char, Pieces Integer }
>
> Looks once again on http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks .htm.
> In R-projection these two relation variables (but with other names
> "Shipment" and "Shipment.Items") really exist!!!
>
> The expession...
>
> CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
> {
> No INTEGER;
> WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
> Items SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
> {
> Article STRING;
> Pieces INTEGER;
> }
> }
>
> ...just other way to define these two variables, which you believe to
> be "better design". But you cannot understand at all, that "CREATE
> CLASS SHIPMENT" define a set of relation, once again - SET of
> relations but your...
>
> >>Shipment base relation...
>
> is not a SET - it is just single relation. Do you understang the
> difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
> as difference between single relation and DB.
>
> And (I'm sure now) that some persons here need to get a lessons of
> reading. My question is not "how to describe SHIPMENT variable in D
> language" at all. I know it very well. I speak about the type
> specification and type implimentation, about polimorphous names, about
> binding etc. and show with example how easy TheORM allows to realize
> some things. My question is "How D language can realize these things?
> if it can do it at all..."
>
> Really such "high-level" answer make me laugh.
Received on Wed Apr 19 2006 - 13:47:06 CEST