Re: Mixing OO and DB

On Feb 10, 7:50 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> 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.

Fact, as in... "statement of fact". As in a true proposition. That's it. Nothing else.

Let's cut the blather, it's not necessary.

>
> >> 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.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

>
> >> 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!

Yes, and whatever other sentences you want to type in that don't make sense, you fill your boots.

>
> > 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.)

There is no need to pluralize data. It has long been acceptable to use the term in the singular.

> But returning to
> the question about fences, if OO mechanisms are useful, what is wrong with
> using them?

They bind you into a single brittle conceptual model, as opposed to offering a neutral logical model from which different conceptual models may be extracted. Lordy, why am I bothering? You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge are you?

> What prevents you from talking about mechanisms rather than
> pushing [dubious] philosophical agenda?

Blah, blah. I have no agenda apart from building good systems. I use both OO and RM, and understand the strength and weaknesses of both. I gave you a definition of data, but you're gonna have to google the difference between conceptual and logical models.

>
> > 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...

You "never saw the value '123' out there" in the real world? Good grief. You've not seen a phone number written down either then, or a room number, or heard of lotus 123? Right you are then.

Look I'm rapidly becoming aware that your responses are incoherent, and as such are almost impossible to respond to sensibly. Perhaps someone from comp.object can let me know if you normally offer any salient points and there is merely a language issue at hand here, or whether I'm wasting my time. There is no point in my posting again until then.

>
> --
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Sun Feb 10 2008 - 23:30:44 CET