Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: 1 Jun 2006 02:48:03 -0700
Message-ID: <1149155283.208954.267690_at_i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> What are the available OO languages that can do a better job than SQL into handling data definition and manipulation...Java?
> What are the limitations of these languages to do what's above? What's currently missing in OO (Is object "persistence" a desperate attempt at establishing representations of R Tables)
Thank you for helping into that direction... Here is the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_thread/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > 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
> > relational model is an empty unfounded attempt of some IT professional
> > to project their scifi fantasies about what system could do and what
> > they can actually do in a realistic manner.
> >
> > On the other side, some OO advocates state that OO approach brings some
> > features that would seem to better implementations of subtype and
> > supertypes features through inheritance as well as a better in memory
> > physical handling of non primitive types than what we are accustomed to
> > 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.
>
> Cimode, the above seems like a rather broad overview of OO and the RM. I
> am not sure what you are seeking an opinion about. As a general rule
> online, the more specific the question the better then answers.
>
> The relational model is symbolic logic.
>
> OO is a low-level mechanism for creating large unpredictable state
> machines out of smaller predictable state machines. OO is all about
> managing variables.
>
> After OO was created, folks noted that it has some utility for
> abstraction and reuse. However, the RM is a much better model for
> abstraction, has a more sound foundation, and provides more effective reuse.
Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 11:48:03 CEST