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 19:45:26 GMT
Message-ID: <qnmfg.15635$A26.364119_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


Robert Martin wrote:

> On 2006-05-31 09:32:34 -0500, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said:
>

>> Would you also say that the decision of whether to use an OOPL
>> or an FPL is a detail? If your system does data management,
>> then at the core of the system you should have a Data Base
>> Management System. Not to use the tools best suited for
>> the problem is irresponsible.

>
> I certainly agree with the last part of that. I'd also say that the
> decision not to use an OOPL had better be very well founded. (e.g. like
> you are working in a DSP that has no OO compiler).

Or you are working on an application that doesn't need to use a very large state machine or you need the competitive advantage offered by a more-powerful higher level language than the typical OO language.

> If you system does data management then you need some way to manage that
> data.

Duh! And the best way we have to manage data is with a relational database management system.

   You also need some way to transform that data according to the
> application business rules.

Here, once again, you prove your ignorance and stupidity. The business rules are the business rules. One does not have a separate set of rules for applications from data. Everything has to meet the needs of the business.

Transforming data according to the business rules is best done as close to the level of intent as possible using the most powerful tools available for deriving data. Those tools are equivalently the relational algebra and the relational calculus.

   Those to things are orthogonal and neither
> should have a strong impact upon the other.

Ah, so you were just building a straw man all along. Yawn.

   Thus the fact that I have
> an RDB helping me to manage my data may be entirely irrelelvant to the
> system as a whole, except as the details data management mechanism.

May be, but not bloody likely. Idiot.

> I agree that there are some systems where the use of an RDB is an
> obvious choice; but that does not make it a core design decision.
> Morevoer I'd still want to hide the RDB from the application code as
> much as I could.

That's because you are stupid and ignorant. Repeating the above does nothing to change that. Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 21:45:26 CEST

Original text of this message