Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 30 May 2006 12:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1149017477.139337.243090_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I noticed a recurring commercial argumentation about creating *behavior* into components (named classes). This caracteristics is often presented as being a differentiation of relational model where no
such thing really exists (and in fact is not necessary). In a word, In
OO approach (for whatever it may rely on), one of the main limitation
of relational model would be not to allow its elementary components to
emulate elementary predefined processes (transformations for instance).
I have the impression, there is a concept, unbearable to some
programmers that data management systems can not be anything else than
a mechanized set of tool that could help structuring data for human
interpretation. On that standpoint, relational model components
reflect an approximation of *meaning* concept as being a contextualized
and specific combination of constraints, business rules to make
predefined inferences about that data for preparing interpretation.
Processes are defined only according to specifically defined
inferences. On the other side, OO approach seems to advocate that some
level of elementary process autonomy will end up creating *some* form
of intelligence thanks to some cumulative effect. On such perspective,
I start suspecting all debate stating behavior lacking in the
with traditional SQL implementations.
I am curious about your opinion about this matter as this is a new board for me. (Sorry if you have noticed some english errors as it is not my native language) so bear with me please. Received on Tue May 30 2006 - 21:31:17 CEST