Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:09:14 -0500
Message-ID: <2006060118091436579-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
On 2006-05-31 13:14:41 -0500, "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> said:
> I think the validity of your point of view depends on whether you view the
> database as belonging to a single application,
> or whether multiple applications, perhaps originally provided by different
> vendors, collaborate with each other by using the same database to store
> persistent data.
>
> Most people who have worked in application development workshops assure me
> that such a scenario is unheard of. on the other hand, I assure you that,
> when the ideas about enterprise databases were being developed in the 1960s
> and 1970s, this was at the heart of what a database was all about. The
> idea of embedding a "data bank" (if you prefer that terminology) in a
> single application would have struck them as quaint, bordering on absurd.
Of course we see both kinds. We see huge applications like MSWord, MSProject, or, in fact, most of the office suite which completely embed the data bank within themselves. (Sans things like OLE and it's derivatives). We also see huge enterprise systems of many collaborating applications using a single huge enterprise data model. And, we see lots of system in between.
However, none of this validates the notion that the DB is the bricks and the applications are the mortar. Indeed that metaphor is just silly. Bricks and mortar build static structures. Systems are dynamic structures.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Fri Jun 02 2006 - 01:09:14 CEST