Re: OO versus RDB

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:16:50 +0200
Message-ID: <44a2f141$0$31642$>

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.


>>...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.


> 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 - 23:16:50 CEST

Original text of this message