Re: OO versus RDB

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:35:52 GMT
Message-ID: <sYVog.3813$>

erk wrote:

> I wish I weren't taking this post seriously.
> H. S. Lahman wrote:

>>Responding to Frebe73...
>>The stored procedure ensures that burdenedSalary is updated whenever any
>>of the attributes it depends upon is modified. That is necessary for
>>dependent attributes to ensure data integrity outside the scope of the
>>update transaction.
> There's no integrity concern if you don't store the derived value.

Even if you do, there is no concern because the dbms takes care of snapshots just as easily as views.

>>>Changing names of columns but keeping the sematics is extremly rare,
>>>just because it breaks the interface to the applications.
>>So do all changes to enterprise schemas, which is why /any/ change to
>>such a schema is a big deal. The DBA already had to change the schema
>>to provide burdenedSalary and chose that opportunity to clean up the

> And that's a fine thing to do, but applications will be affected. I
> don't see O-O helping at all with this.

The self-aggrandizing ignorant is smugly assuming that the OO programmer would never make such an error in the first place. However, I suggest the OO guy is much more likely to do so than a knowledgeable RM guy.

After all, the OO guy used fuzzy, imprecise and poorly defined terms all the time. Why would he suddenly think precision is important? Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 21:35:52 CEST

Original text of this message