Re: The Terrific Trio
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:42:48 -0400
Message-ID: <47cad90a$0$4070$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Why? It seems to me the existing technologies are more than adequate.
>
> The RAD IDEs and layered model infrastructures already have CRUD/USER
> processing well covered.
>
> For non-CRUD/USER applications one can abstract the existing RDB
> paradigm once in a subsystem. Then one can reuse that subsystem across
> applications by simply providing an application-specific interface
> (think: Facade pattern) and an external configuration file to map
> identity through that interface.
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:42:48 -0400
Message-ID: <47cad90a$0$4070$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
H. S. Lahman wrote:
> Responding to Cressey...
>
> OK, I will bite and assume this is not simply an attempt to be
> completely facetious...
>
>> I've been mulling over the discussion about mixing OO and DB, with >> an eye >> towards coming up with a system that permits an object world and a >> relational schema to interact and collaborate productively. So far, I've >> got three components that each cover a piece of the territory.
>
> Why? It seems to me the existing technologies are more than adequate.
>
> The RAD IDEs and layered model infrastructures already have CRUD/USER
> processing well covered.
>
> For non-CRUD/USER applications one can abstract the existing RDB
> paradigm once in a subsystem. Then one can reuse that subsystem across
> applications by simply providing an application-specific interface
> (think: Facade pattern) and an external configuration file to map
> identity through that interface.
What a dumb idea! By what measure is that supposed to be better than application views?!? I am sticking with CURLY! Received on Sun Mar 02 2008 - 17:42:48 CET