Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:11:04 -0800
Message-ID: <1170126664.450074.131630_at_j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 29, 6:19 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> You seem to assume objects only ever have a transient purpose. I
> don't agree with that. For example, a compound document system is a
> good candidate for OO and the text, images etc need to persist.
I disagree.
> Note that some people erroneously believe that RM is appropriate for
> storing the individual characters in text or the pixels in an image.
If we omit the incorrect use of the word "erroneous" and replace the word "store" with something more applicable like "model" then I'm one of those people.
> My criterion predicts that OO is more appropriate in these cases (and
> irrespective of lifetime concerns).
I agree with you that lifetime is not an issue, but I disagree with the rest.
> You can see when RM is stretched beyond its limits. For example a
> relational representation of text is woefully inefficient, and more
> importantly its logical model breaks the encapsulation of the string
> as an ADT.
Here you commit a variety of errors, the most obvious one being the confusion of the logical and physical.
Marshall Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 04:11:04 CET