Re: Mixing OO and DB

On Feb 10, 5:45 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:52:00 +0100, mAsterdam wrote:
> > In your extension, you appear to map your slaves to data.
> > Slaves behave, objects do. Data doesn't.
>
> If data did not behave how would it be possible to use data?
>
> [What is data, in your opinion?

Data. Lots of datum - from latin, meaning statement of fact. Predicate and value in FOL. A value without description is of course just noise.

> On my side: data are values semantically bound

"Semantically bound"? yuck, I think you need to break that down to brass tacks.

> to some entities from the problem space. (The type of values describes the behavior of data.)]

Entities feature in or are extracted from data, not the other way around. Data is certainly not "bound to" entities, which is hand wavy terminology at best. My concern for OO is not that its mechanisms are not useful, but that it gives objects primacy before data, instead of the other way around as per the definition of the term.

Entities don't store data. Rather, observed data allows us to formulate entities.

>
> >> Yes, because the common ground is not understood and not even articulated.
>
> > All ground is common. This, like Patrick May's stance,
> > invalidates the OP's question.
>
> Yes.
>
> >> When in a subthread Patrick May wrote about the goals of software design
> >> (quality), you disagreed.
>
> > That is not what I disagreed with.
>
> So you agree that software design could be such a ground?
>
> >> In your metaphor, he just said that a ship should
> >> float. You replied that it is not about ships.
>
> > Maybe you just misread it, maybe I said something in an unclear way.
> > Please quote the passage you are hinting at.
>
> "That is stricly one side of the fence - it is the goal for a software
> development process. The goal for a DB is to serve as a vehicle to manage
> data."
>
> If the ultimate goal is same, then managing the thing called data is mere
> one possible thread of the process.
>
> > Please describe the fence as seen from your side.
>
> In short and technically, it is refusal to view tables as typed values.
>
> > I see the same DB/DBMS conflation as Patrick made.
> > I asked Patrick, and I'm asking you:
> > Do you need that?
>
> Yes, I do, especially when talking about a common ground.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Sun Feb 10 2008 - 19:29:58 CET