Re: OO versus RDB

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:16:50 +0200
Message-ID: <44a2f141$0$31642$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

erk wrote:
> H. S. Lahman wrote:

...
> Perhaps part of my problem is the absolute vacuousness of the word
> "management."

Yeah, IBM-SAA trauma; Windows/Presentation Manager.

...
> Access may be irrelevant, but WHAT you get back is very relevant.

Exactly.

>>...Modularization has been a basic part of large scale software
>>development since the '60s and there is nothing particularly OO about it.

>
> True.
>

>>That's not the issue.  Any time one makes /any/ change to an application
>>there is a potential to insert a defect.

>
> A meaningless statement.

No, one of the benefits of some forms of modules-approach is to protect parts from mistakes in other parts by isolating them - even at the cost of difficult-to-maintain redundancies.

>>One reason one separates
>>concerns is so that the insertion defects is isolated and limited in
>>what can be broken.

Exactly.

> If you separate a module, and both parts depend on the same thing, like
> a data structure, then a change in that data structure will break both
> parts. I could probably function with my stomach outside my body, with
> proper surgery, so that a bullet to my gut wouldn't damage my stomach.
> That doesn't make it a good idea, for obvious reasons.

Disaster recovery is big business, but

>>If you don't touch the problem solution code nor the interface it uses
>>to access the data it needs, then you can be confident that you didn't
>>break the solution logic.

>
> Wrong. It depends on WHAT data it's getting.

... even in disaster scenario's.

...

-- 
"The person who says it cannot be done
should not interrupt the person doing it."
Chinese Proverb.

Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 16:16:50 CDT