Re: Object-oriented SQL statements

On Jul 23, 2:45 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 7:43 am, Nis Jørgensen <n..._at_superlativ.dk> wrote:
>
> >>Bob Badour skrev:
>
> >>>Zorro wrote:
>
> >>>>Please comment on the approach illustrated in :
>
> >>>>http://www.zhmicro.com/Database.pdf
>
> >>>>On July 19 this was posted at comp.object.
>
> >>>Typical nonsense from comp.object on how to cripple a DBMS by forcing it
> >>>through a low-level procedural language and a profoundly limited interface.
>
> >>That would be my guess as well, without following the link :-)
>
> > LOL
>
> > Skimmed over it. It doesn't support joins. You can only query one
> > table at a time.
>
> > This has become the first question I ask when I see a new
> > approach: what does join support look like?
>
> > Marshall
>
> Good points, it looks like one has to re-invent the relops for oneself.
> Successful consultants usually see the financial advantage in that.
> Yet they say they have a happy marriage which confines them to the SQL
> standard. I predict divorce at some point. It also says they have a
> verifiable conceptual model. What does it mean to verify the conceptual
> model of SQL? Looks like they are just throwing words around, like most
> vendors, they might change all the words tomorrow and still sell the
> same product. The selling point might be that it would be just as
> coherent as it was yesterday, namely not at all. There seems to be no
> lack of buyers who consider that an advantage.
>
> Does the OP somehow qualify as SPAM, eg., the database equivalent of
> scientology?
>
> p- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When we say quantun mechanics is mapped to Hilbert space, one does not need to verify what a Hilbert space is. In this case however, I had to look at many ways that one would interact with a database to accomplish something, and see if the model is consistent in supporting those needs. In other words, the model in its own sake had to be verified for consistency as well as coherence to the notions of objectorientation,  and the context of the language in which it was presented. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful with a paragraph or two.

Thanks for your comments.
Dr. Z. Received on Tue Jul 24 2007 - 18:30:17 CEST