Re: Object-oriented SQL statements
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:37:05 -0700
On 24 juil, 18:30, Zorro <zor..._at_tx.rr.com> wrote:
> 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 object-
> orientation, and the context of the language in which it was
> presented. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful with a paragraph or
> Thanks for your comments.
> Dr. Z.
I think it is reasonnable to say that nobody here has any *clue* what you are talking about... Received on Tue Jul 24 2007 - 21:37:05 CEST