Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:57:50 +0100
Message-ID: <1iztr4t1gm74b.107qhvekg5khf$.dlg_at_40tude.net>


On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:48:50 GMT, David Cressey wrote:

> I think it might be interesting to explore the whole concept backwards:
> start with the idea that a table is just a specific class of object, and a
> persistent table is just a specific class of persistent object.

It so obvious that I wonder how one could even consider it "interesting," rather than mandatory. (BTW, persistence is an orthogonal issue to typed relations. As well as concurrency is.)

The problem is that contemporary type systems in OOPL aren't very good to handle this.

> This doesn't sound easy to me, at all. But it could be promising, provided
> there is real value in OO. I don't know OO well enough to have a considered
> opinion on that score.

Look, if typed systems had no sense, then why would anybody have table cells typed? Once you accept usefulness of the latter, you should also apply types to the former.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 16:57:50 CET

Original text of this message