Re: OO versus RDB

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:18:18 GMT
Message-ID: <eZxog.3346$pu3.80765@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Christian Brunschen wrote:

> In article <1151501485.755962.108350_at_p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> erk <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>topmind wrote:
>>
>>>[...] (Unlike OO, where encapsulation
>>>encourages each object/class to reinvent its own
>>>add/change/delete/cross-reference/search rules and interfaces so that
>>>they are all different for each project or shop.
>>
>>Agreed. I wouldn't have a problem with inconsistencies if the languages
>>just offered some powerful basic operations. You can't even write
>>something in Java like this, which would be completely type-safe:
>>
>>Set<LineItem> items =
>>theOrder.lineItems.where(item.status==Status.SHIPPED);

>
>
> Perhaps somewhat interestingly, in a dynamic OO language such as
> Smalltalk, Objective-C or Ruby, you can use the technique of Higher-Order
> Messaging (HOM), as described in the 2005 OOPLSA paper
> <www.metaobject.com/papers/Higher_Order_Messaging_OOPSLA_2005.pdf>, to do
> something quite similar; in Objective-C syntax something like
>
> NSSet *lineItems =
> [[[[order lineItems] selectWhere] status] equals:STATUS_SHIPPED];

You have given an example involving only restriction. Does the method work for project, extend and join as well? Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 11:18:18 CDT