Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:57:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <d808f43e-206c-4f77-b7a3-3db6021845c2_at_s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 3, 10:54 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > JOG wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga..._at_wide-open-west.com> wrote:
>
> >>>All attempts by applications to access a DB's tables and columns
> >>>directly violates design principles that guard against close-coupling.
> >>>This is a basic design tenet for OO. Violating it when jumping from OO
> >>>to RDB is, I think, the source of problem that are collectively and
> >>>popularly referred to as the object-relational impedance mismatch.
>
> >>I wondered if we might be able to come up with some agreement on what
> >>object-relational impedence mismatch actually means. I always thought
> >>the mismatch was centred on the issue that a single object != single
> >>tuple, but it appears there may be more to it than that.
>
> >>I was hoping perhaps people might be able to offer perspectives on the
> >>issues that they have encountered. 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?) - I wonder if the 'mismatch' stems from such a
> >>perspective.
>
> > This came up in a nearby message. I borrowed the following text from
> > wikipedia:
>
> The text had too many blatant errors to start enumerating them all.
> The
> problem with wikipedia is any ignorant fool can just start typing
> nonsense. Even when one follows the requirements for references to
> primary sources, the quality of the end product can vary over many
> orders of magnitude.
-T- Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 22:57:42 CET