Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 20:54:30 +0200
Message-ID: <1qdy0igamkavx$.kz9upnnqack7.dlg_at_40tude.net>
>
> If the data store were very dumb, such as XML, "we c.o people" would have
> _less_ problem coupling to it. It's _because_ the DBMS is very smart that
> the risks from coupling gets so high.
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 20:54:30 +0200
Message-ID: <1qdy0igamkavx$.kz9upnnqack7.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:34:03 GMT, phlip wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
>> The c.o. people's arguments are mostly based on the false >> premise that a DBMS is a kind of storage mechanism. >> Once you accept a false premise, you can prove anything.
>
> If the data store were very dumb, such as XML, "we c.o people" would have
> _less_ problem coupling to it. It's _because_ the DBMS is very smart that
> the risks from coupling gets so high.
I don't see why smartness should influence coupling.
IMO, DBMS are usually decoupled because whatever smartness they might have, it is not what is needed for the problem at hand. Their behavior vary from vendor to vendor in a quite unpredictable manner. Functional requirements are always at high risk. About non-functional requirements, one should better be silent. The worst thing a customer might say to you is, ah, well, you know, I'd like to have a DB...
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Fri Jun 02 2006 - 20:54:30 CEST