Re: OO versus RDB
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:16:50 +0200
Message-ID: <44a2f141$0$31642$e4fe514c_at_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 - 23:16:50 CEST