Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:52:48 +0100
Message-ID: <47af9c0b$0$85784$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 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?

Being active is not, as your question presupposes, a prerequisite to being used.

> [What is data, in your opinion?

Recorded facts.

In the context of electronic dataprocessing it only makes sense to talk about data when the medium on which they are recorded is readable by some mechanism to achieve electronic representation, but that is not inherent to data.

> On my side: data are values semantically
> bound to some entities from the problem space.

The one recording the facts (or the designer of the datacapture) will have some entities in mind when recording/capturing the data. To make sure that the interpretation won't be far off, a description in terms of entities (from the problem space) helps.

This does not garantee that the interpretation in terms of entities of formerly collected facts will stay the same.

"semantically bound" suggests a formalism. Did you intend that? If so which one?

> (The type of values describes the behavior of data.)]

How? I don't understand what you are saying here - this may be a language thing, though.
An example might clarify.

>>> 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?

It is not clear what you are asking me to agree to.

>>> 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."

I do not see how you can read this as:
"In your metaphor, he just said that a ship should float. You replied that it is not about ships."

Please state your own opinions.
You are not doing a good job stating mine.

> If the ultimate goal is same, then managing the thing called data is mere
> one possible thread of the process.

That does not follow.
Furthermore: after the process stops, the data remains.

>> 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.

Patrick May considered his DB/DBMS conflation just sloppy, you need it. Please elaborate.

Up to now your arguments do not yet
step outside the 'the other guys are so stupid' box. Are you planning to? I specifically asked to skip those.

--
What you see depends on where you stand.

Received on Mon Feb 11 2008 - 01:52:48 CET