Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: S Perryman <q_at_q.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:13:24 +0000
Message-ID: <fqke1q$2dp$1_at_aioe.org>

David Cressey wrote:

> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:739e8329-de62-41bb-b6de-f914bb3c936b_at_i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Robert Martin wrote:

TM>OO'ers see it as a necessary evil and don't have a choice because
TM>that's where all the data is. Many OO'ers want to toss RDBMS for
TM>OODBMS (commercial or roll-your-own).

>>You've created an enemy out of thin air. I consult on a *lot* of

>>different projects. I simply don't see the attitude you claim is so >>pervasive.

>>I would roughly estimate about that 30% of the OO'ers I debate want an
>>OODBMS instead of an RDBMS. If your experience differs, so be it. I
>>don't watn another anecdote fight.

> So be it. That suggests a topic for a different discussion:

> Given that so many people want an OODBMS

You are debating a fallacy. A fallacy from someone steeped in fallacies about what the OO community do, want etc (the "30%" being a classic of the kind) .

> why has one not been built?

OODBMS have been built. There was an whole industry in the 1990s.

I and others also built *relational ADT bases* in the 1990s (if you were working on OSI network management systems using OO prog langs) for systems containing millions of objects (and in the case of network event logs - gigabytes of records) .

> I think it's because the term OODBMS contains a contradiction in terms. But
> I'm open to other opinions.

The fact they were built is the only contradiction at this point.

Regards,
Steven Perryman Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 22:13:24 CET