Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:56:16 +0200
- changed subject line *
> David Cressey wrote:
>>mAsterdam wrote: >>>Patrick May wrote: >>> >>>> I did not find him backing up his claims regarding Mr. Martin's >>>>"foolishness". Can you or can you not point out a specific example of >>>>him doing so? >>> >>>>Robert Martin ha escrito: >>>> >>>>>>Ridiculous. OO and RDB coexist very nicely together. >>>>>>I've never heard anyone suggest >>>>>>that searches aren't needed. >>>> >>>>Relational databases have nothing to do with searches. >>>>This shows profound ignorance about data management theory.
>>I disagree with both points.
>>The need to support searches is one reason for building a database in the >>first place. Perhaps the foremost reason.
> I would say relational databases are more
> about "finding" than about "searching" :-)
> >>The way relational databases support searches is one reason for choosing a >>relational database over some other kind. The same comment can be made >>regarding SQL databases.
> The way relational databases support "finding" is one reason for choosing a
> database over a file system. :-)
DBMS's use these access mechanisms and provide an
easy-to-use interface to them. Anybody who has a
DBMS can simply use these as features.
The ease this brings may give valid economical reasons to use a DBMS just to take care of searching.
Like persistence/storage services - search and find services come with the product.
Maybe a little metaphor helps:
Sure you can buy an organ because it looks nice in the living room, or even just for the nice rhythm box it has built in.
But that is not what it is built for -
you are not using the organ as an organ
(even though you are using it as a musical instrument in the case of the rhythm box).
A DBMS is built to be a toolkit for
The R in RDB, for 'Relational' emphasizes that.
>>Further, claiming that OO and RDB can coexist very nicely does not even >>begin to demonstrate that the author is ignorant of data managment theory, >>any more that anyone else.
> That depends on what OO means:
> - eggs
> - other orthogonals :-)
> - etc.
>>As for me, I've seen a number of cases where OO and RDB did NOT coexist >>very nicely, so the claim that they CAN coexist very nicely carries some >>element of surprise for me. I'm skeptical, but I'm not about to dsimiss >>it as ignorant.
OO and RM do coexist. We know how to make them coexist clumsily: Completely focus on the strengths of one of them, ignoring the strengths of the other. Now that's not a problem if you can do without coexistence; if you live on a RM or OO island. I don't.
> As for what some statements shows: they show our interpretation of our
> interpretation of them - our own foolishness.
Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 17:56:16 CEST