Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
From: Sasa <sasa555_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:36:33 +0200
Message-ID: <e61q2i$o4i$1_at_sunce.iskon.hr>
>
>
> Why would you do that? The requirements dictate the conceptual
> model. The conceptual model dictates the logical model. The
> logical model is the database schema. The conceptual model
> also dictates what the application code needs to do.
>
> If you have done the above correctly, there is no "separation"
> between the schematic needs of the database and those
> of the application. There is certainly no need for "independence."
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:36:33 +0200
Message-ID: <e61q2i$o4i$1_at_sunce.iskon.hr>
Marshall wrote:
> Sasa wrote:
>
>>mAsterdam wrote: >> >>>And all tables, columns and constraints in your schema >>>were designed and named by the object-persistence layer >>>designers/programmers, for programs. >>>... >> >>No. They should be designed semi-independently of the object persistence >>layer. The client (app(s)) dictates what it wants. The DBMS chooses how >>will it present it. The mapper, simply translates.
>
>
> Why would you do that? The requirements dictate the conceptual
> model. The conceptual model dictates the logical model. The
> logical model is the database schema. The conceptual model
> also dictates what the application code needs to do.
>
> If you have done the above correctly, there is no "separation"
> between the schematic needs of the database and those
> of the application. There is certainly no need for "independence."
Sasa Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 19:36:33 CEST