Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > One month ago I sent very simple question to dbdebunk.com.
> >
> > "...initial assumption, which all reasonings and conclusions are built
> > on, does not seem to me full. I mean the question " What concept in the
> > relational world is the counterpart to the concept "object class" in
> > the object world?" and two answers
> > 1. domain = object class
> > 2. relation = object class
> > I'm not sure that these two answers (of course, the first one is true
> > and second one is false) are only possible ones.
>
> Indeed, but if the first one is the true then all the others are false.
>
> 3. scalar type = object class
>
> is also true but it is the same as 1.
>
> But of course there are more relationships between OO and the
> Relational Model.
>
> For instance:
>
> operator = method
> pointer = OID
> scalar value = object
> scalar variable = object
> scalar value = instance
>
> Etc.
[snip]

While I agree with virtually everything you say Alfred, I never liked the "pointer=OID comparison.". Pointers are variable, and OID's are far more analagous to a memory address. Of course, that doesn't diminish the disadvantages of navigational databases, but the sofware engineer in me always cringes slightly when I see the comparison. Received on Wed Apr 19 2006 - 21:29:02 CEST