Re: Mixing OO and DB
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:50:40 +0100
Message-ID: <1s2vlm760lnf$.v4j5gka9nls0$.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:29:58 -0800 (PST), JOG wrote:
> 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.
"Fact" in which domain? Or maybe you simply mean that data is a set of statements in some formal language, without any particular meaning. Then those aren't facts, but mere a program.
>> On my side: data are values semantically bound
>
> "Semantically bound"? yuck, I think you need to break that down to
> brass tacks.
Sure. After you have applied inference rules to the bunch of statements called data, you get another bunch of statements which has as little sense as the former had, unless there is a meaning attached to. This meaning necessary lies outside the formal system.
>> 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.
Entities extracted from data? Cool, if I only could extract warmth from 22 degrees Celsius, that would reduce my energy bills!
> 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.
(There is no any primacy as data just do not exist alone.) But returning to the question about fences, if OO mechanisms are useful, what is wrong with using them? What prevents you from talking about mechanisms rather than pushing [dubious] philosophical agenda?
> Entities don't store data. Rather, observed data allows us to
> formulate entities.
I cannot decipher that. When I referred to entities I meant ones in the problem space. "Observing data," makes me think that you believe in data physically existing in the real world. I never saw the number 123 out there, maybe I should work less, and more frequently look out of the window in order to spot it...
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Sun Feb 10 2008 - 20:50:40 CET