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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:38:30 GMT
Message-ID: <GZCfg.16016$A26.371995@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Cimode wrote:

> Thanks for the guidance...I will keep in mind your advice to give more
> targetted questions...The subject would be to find out how and what OO
> mechanisms (nice definition) can contribute to build better
> implementations of relational requirements throughout the system life
> cycle...
>
> Questions I would like to discuss are of the following type:
>

>>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)

>
> My point is to help establish a practical list of feature (some kind of
> Bill of Material) of important requirements OO languages should meet to
> be potential candidates to better allow relational implementation. I
> do believe this kind of debate can be more useful that raw opposition
> between programmers and relational advocates. As you stated, OO can in
> no case be put on the same standpoint than relational model as they are
> of totally different nature...In a schematic manner, it seems OO is
> more about implementation than abstraction only a model can bring. It
> also seems to me OO mechanisms could do as well as current SQL (at
> least its current form) into implementing better DBMS... Question is
> how?

You underestimate the power of a good formalism. OO doesn't stand a chance even against SQL. Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 09:38:30 CDT