Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Databases as objects

Re: Databases as objects

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:47:59 GMT
Message-ID: <P0yih.35827$cz.528813@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


Thomas Gagne wrote:

> An unexpected thing happened while debating topmind (over in
> comp.object): I had an epiphany.
> Instead of responding to the news group I thought about it for a short
> bit (very short) and posted an article to my blog titled, "The RDB is
> the biggest object in my system."
>
> <http://blogs.in-streamco.com/anything.php?title=the_rdb_is_the_biggest_object_in_my_syst>
>
>
> What I realized while trying to describe my preference to use DB
> procedures as the primary (re: only) interface between my applications
> and the database is because I believe my DB's physical representation of
> data belongs to it alone and that customers of the DB oughtn't be
> permitted to directly manipulate (change or query) its data. I realized
> this is exactly what data-hiding is all about and why expert object
> oriented designers and programmers emphasize the importance of
> interfaces to direct data manipulation.
>
> I thought more about this and posted a second article, Databases as
> Objects: My schema is my class, which explored more similarities between
> databases and objects and their classes.
>
> <http://blogs.in-streamco.com/anything.php?title=my_schema_is_an_class>
>
> I intend next to explore various design patterns from GoF and Smalltalk:
> Best Practice Patterns to see if the similarities persist or where they
> break down, and what can be learned from both about designing and
> implementing OO systems with relational data bases.

Oh dear. I want to say that's a "Great Blunder" Squared; however, I suspect it requires a higher order exponent to do justice to the blunder.

> If you agree there's such a thing as an object-relational impedance
> mismatch, then perhaps its because you're witnessing the negative
> consequences of tightly coupling objects that shouldn't be tightly coupled.

Do you realise what you are saying has direct analogy to noting a mismatch between assembler and java then concluding one has to wrap one's java code in assembler?

> There's a hypothesis in there somewhere.

No doubt. But does it have any real use or predictive value?

> As always, if you know of existing research on the subject I'm anxious
> to read about it.

If the existing research were water, you would have already drowned while asking for a sip. You could start with Frege circa 1879. Or you could cut to the chase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd Received on Thu Dec 21 2006 - 09:47:59 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US