Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:11:17 +0200
Message-ID: <2006061313111764440-unclebob@objectmentorcom>

On 2006-06-03 02:02:22 +0200, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said:

> Robert Martin wrote:

>> On 2006-05-31 13:03:21 -0500, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said:
>> 
>>> A common misconception among application programmers
>>> is that their technique of managing integrity with hand written
>>> code protected by object encapsulation is the equal of
>>> a centrally managed declarative integrity constraint, and
>>> that it's merely six of one, half dozen of the other.
>> 
>> Can you cite a source for this other than your own opinion?

>
> This question surprises me. If I had said Java was higher level
> than assembly, would you have asked for a citation? How
> would I then respond?

I was asking you to cite a source that it is a "common misconception". I don't think it is. I think most application programmers are quite convinced that data integrity constraints in the database provide long term protection against data mismanagement by the zoo of applications. I also think they take the need to manage data *within* their applications seriously.

> Declarative integrity constraints are better than manually
> written procedural code for the reasons I list below,
> and others.

No argument. They are better. They just don't cover all the contingencies. Specfically they aren't in effect when the data is being actively manipulated in RAM by an application.

-- 
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)  | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com
Object Mentor Inc.            | blog:  www.butunclebob.com
The Agile Transition Experts  | web:   www.objectmentor.com
800-338-6716                  |

Received on Tue Jun 13 2006 - 06:11:17 CDT