Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:32:44 GMT
Message-ID: <gjlfg.15608$A26.363580_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


Marshall wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Finally, and this is critical to the understaning of my point, the code
>>>in which data integrity is specified IS application code.  It may be
>>>written in a special purpose DB language, or it may not.  But it is code
>>>that supports the application.
>>
>>Code? Do you consider a well-formed formula code? Are logic predicates
>>code? I am just curious what you define as code. If you define code to
>>include everything, then your statement is true if unremarkable and
>>uninteresting.

>
> Another good catch.
>
> A common misconception among application programmers
> is that their technique of managing integrity with hand written
> code protected by object encapsulation is the equal of
> a centrally managed declarative integrity constraint, and
> that it's merely six of one, half dozen of the other.
>
> In fact, the reality is that the declarative integrity constraint
> is at a higher level of abstraction, and is at a much lower
> cost to produce and maintain, and at a much lower risk
> for error, than the hand-written code.

That covers the well-formed formula part, but my point goes even further than that. Most of what he refers to as application code simply derives new statements from the data, which is what a logic predicate would do. Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 20:32:44 CEST

Original text of this message