Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Microsoft's bridge between OO and relational

Re: Microsoft's bridge between OO and relational

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:13:50 GMT
Message-ID: <irjgg.232026$WI1.172703@pd7tw2no>


Marshall wrote:

> JXStern wrote:
> 

>>What do y'all think of this stuff?
>>
>>J.
>>
>>http://www.ftponline.com/vsm/2006_04/magazine/features/rjennings/
>>
>>Test Drive VB9 and DLinq
>>The January 2006 Language Integrated Query (LINQ) preview for the next
>>("Orcas") version of Visual Basic enables automating SQL Server
>>object-relational mapping for DLinq and enhances XLinq syntax for
>>literal XML and late binding.
>>Roger Jennings
>>
>>March 27, 2006
>>
>>Technology Toolbox: VB.NET, SQL Server 2005, XML, Visual Studio 2005,
>>or Visual Basic or Visual Web Developer Express editions, Visual Basic
>>9.0 LINQ Technology Preview (January 2006), SQL Server 2005 Express
>>Edition or higher, Northwind sample database
>>
>>The forthcoming Visual Studio "Orcas" release promises major upgrades
>>to data-management programming with Visual Basic 9.0 and C# 3.0.
>>
>>Language Integrated Query (LINQ) and its data (DLinq) and XML (XLinq)
>>libraries transform relational data and XML documents into
>>first-class, interoperable CLR objects
>>
>>...
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating, but ultimately not compelling. They get all the right
> functionality, but they don't manage the complexity at all.
> It's not elegant; it's backwards-compatible. Still, one of the
> few real attempts to do something ambitious. A noble failure.
> 
> It is worth reading some of the papers that started out their
> whole effort.
> 
> 
> Marshal
> 

Without reading it all and accepting that a domain is nothing but a data type it has seemed to me a retrograde kind of introspection, even bizarre, to first make relations out of domains (granted, IIRC from other posts, it seems that the SQL standard doesn't depend on the term 'relation'), then turn around and make those relations into data types.   Maybe M$ should be re-thinking all those old pieces this Linq thing is depending on.

p Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 12:13:50 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US