Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:18:01 -0400
Message-Id: <>

Cimode wrote:

> Thanks for the response...
> <<You don't have to worry all that much about what the relational model
> allows
> or doesn't allow. As anybody here can tell you, there are no pure
> relational databases in the Real World. >>

> I am puzzled by this
> statement...Everything in my experience teaches me that the current SQL
> implementation have recurring problems because they actuall y do not
> support correctly relational concepts...

Like what problems? Can you give a few examples?

> <<What we have is quasi-relational table-based systems that in fact can
> handle
> processes very well. >>

> What do you exactly mean by handling processes
> very well? Most systems I face dayly, present grave performance and
> administration problems that could be avoided if rules dictated by
> normalization were respected...

You clipped it all out. I said that being able to specify transformations and automations would do the trick. That's how we do it here at SDS.

There are some exceptions that require hoop-jumping, but they are thankfully very rare.

> <<Table-centric systems can. >>I see...What exactly are table centric
> systems...Do you mean SQL based systems (ORACLE, DB2, SQL Server)
> My concern is about how OO mechanisms could be utilized to allow better
> physical implementation of relational concepts...Is Java a potentially
> language than SQL for data manipulation, data definition (or
> both)...Thanks for your input...

I went the other way myself, putting more abilities into the server and using less OO, and it has served our company and our customers well.


Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 12:18:01 CEST

Original text of this message