Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:23:07 GMT
> Robert Martin wrote:
>>On 2006-05-31 12:44:04 -0500, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said: >> >>>Wow, I missed that one completely. "Isolate the data management >>>mechanism from the data model." How in tarnation is the data >>>manager doing to manage the data if it is isolated from the >>>data model? >> >>It's called decoupling. Generally it's based on dynamic polymorphism >>which is a lot of syllables that really mean function pointers. The >>idea is that you write the application program in such a way that it >>can manipulate the data in the data model without coupling it directly >>to the DBMS, or the details of the schema. The decoupling mechanism is >>very similar to the mechanism used to create device independence in >>operating systems like Unix.
> That's a complete non-sequitur from the sentence I took issue with.
> You said, "Isolate the data management mechanism from the data
> model." This has a very clear denotation: it means the dbms should
> not know the schema of the data it is managing. This is clearly
> self-contradictory. Perhaps you didn't mean that? Perhaps the
> later "it's called decoupling" paragraph is more like what you
> really meant to say?
Marshall, the nonsense in the 'decoupling' paragraph is no better. He once again demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of what a data model is and of what sort of data model he is talking about.
Whether the functions are statically bound, dynamically bound or even dispatched through some completely different mechanism like RPC, a message queue, a pipe (named or otherwise), or a shared file is totally irrelevant to the issue of decoupling.
He is an incompetent self-aggrandizing ignorant. He has proved beyond any possible doubt that he no longer deserves any benefit of any doubt. He is an idiot. Received on Fri Jun 02 2006 - 14:23:07 CEST