Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Patrick May <pjm_at_spe.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:27:03 -0500
Message-ID: <m2mypk30jc.fsf_at_spe.com>

Eric <eric_at_deptj.demon.co.uk> writes:
> On 2008-02-28, Patrick May <pjm_at_spe.com> wrote:
>> ... traversal is done by object
>> reference rather than by some subset of object state
>
> So whatever you think you are saying your subconscious is
> following pointers.

     I tried to be very clear with what I was saying. In the large OO systems that I've worked on, there was no problem with proliferation of finder methods in practice. Typically, once a core set of objects have been instantiated, access to related objects is via reference rather than repeated, explicit database access.

> The trouble is you think you own the data, and also you can only
> look at it in your own way. You do not understand how much work the
> database could do for you, and you discourage proper database design
> because you think you can do better at your (inappropriate) level,
> so that the unknown future uses of the data will be made more
> difficult.

     I do no such thing. When I started out in this industry, lo those many years ago, I was working for a CASE tool company, doing both internal and external development primarily based around relational databases. From there I moved on to consulting engagements with customers including Oracle, Ingres, and DEC, again all related to database-centric development. I know proper database design quite well, thank you.

> You are like a man with a hammer, seeing only nails.

     Not at all. If you check my posting history in comp.object you'll find that I argue for a full toolbox, including OO, relational, procedural, functional, and any other techniques that prove useful in developing quality software.

     There are those in comp.object at the moment arguing for one true paradigm, but those people aren't saying it should be OO.

> Objects are a useful tool but they are not universal, you do not
> have to use them for everything, and you must _not_ campaign to have
> them used for everything. Stop, and realise that there is a wider
> picture.

     The same can be said for any approach, including relational. I know, I've said it. I suggest you take your own advice regarding the wider picture.

Regards,

Patrick

---

S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO

                       | systems design and implementation.
          pjm_at_spe.com  | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)

Received on Fri Feb 29 2008 - 04:27:03 CET