Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:46:09 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 3, 9:27 am, "Roy Hann" <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga..._at_wide-open-west.com> wrote:
> > One thing I would like to avoid
> > (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database
> > technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually
> > think that?)
> Are you kidding?!! You will grow old and die before you find someone not on
> c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
> kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
As the girls say, "It depends on how you use it".
It depends on how you use the DB. In Robert Martin's version of the
payroll application, the DB is almost reduced to a dumb filing system
("persistence layer") because the app code does all the work. However,
in my version:
I *leveraged* the DB so that much if not most of the work is done by
the database and queries *instead* of the app code. There's more
I *leveraged* the DB so that much if not most of the work is done by the database and queries *instead* of the app code. There's moreattribute setup work, but noticeably less app code than Martin's. One "programs" largely by putting attributes in tables instead of writing app code.
One can choose to use the features available from RDBMS, or they can choose to manually program it in app code. Your perspective on what DB's are "for" largely depends on which route you take.
-T- Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 19:46:09 CET