Re: Object-relational impedence
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <eu7thvmetdrl.1h303edvpyjg2$.dlg@40tude.net>
>
> No, RDBs partition data so that it is sensibly and easily available to
> any possible application. So if you use OO you are saying "there will
> never be any other application that will need my data".
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <eu7thvmetdrl.1h303edvpyjg2$.dlg@40tude.net>
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:03:41 +0000, Eric wrote:
> On 2008-03-03, Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
>> >> There is indeed more to it than that. OO and RDB are both strategies >> for partitioning data.
No. OO stands for modeling, that might include data being modeled or serving as models. It also might mean absence of data. In short, data are irrelevant.
>> However, the motivation behind the partitioning >> is completely different. OO partitions data based on the way a >> particular application will process that data. RDBs partition data >> based on how many different applications will need to access that data.
>
> No, RDBs partition data so that it is sensibly and easily available to
> any possible application. So if you use OO you are saying "there will
> never be any other application that will need my data".
No, it is engineering which says so. It translates as "put the requirements first," or simpler "pigs do not fly."
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 03:36:24 CST