Re: One-To-One Relationships

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 09:08:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <dd668d39-3e14-4b96-a5d5-077808889a63@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>

On Dec 2, 2:46 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually the problem is with OO is the same as with the RM, but at the
> other side of the spectrum. In OO the notion of entity is assumed to
> be central, in RM the notion of relationship is. Both are wrong.

This is a very provocative statement. I wish I understood it!

I understand what you are saying about OO. The way I used to hearing OO discussed is vs. FP.

In OO the object is the organizational focus, and functions are organized around this. In FP, functions are the organizing focus, and structures are organized around functions. Thus in OO it is easy to add new datatypes but hard to add new functions to datatypes, whereas in FP it is easy to add new functions but hard to add new datatypes to functions.

However neither issue seems to apply to the RM.

The RM, it seems to me, uses a single abstraction to describe both entities and relationships. So your statement that the RM favors relationships over entities is hard for me to make sense of. Please elaborate.

Marshall Received on Sun Dec 02 2007 - 11:08:25 CST