OODBMS (Re: Mixing OO and DB)

From: topmind <topmind_at_technologist.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:15:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <683dd7c2-0c78-430e-8d00-e51c10d82296_at_s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

David Cressey wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:739e8329-de62-41bb-b6de-f914bb3c936b_at_i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Robert Martin wrote:
> > > OO'ers see it as a necessary evil and don't have a choice because
> > > that's where all the data is. Many OO'ers want to toss RDBMS for
> > > 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, why has one not been built?

They have. It just turned out that Dr. Codd was right yet again about navigational DB's and they were mostly abandoned.

The latest fad is language-specific OODBMS, such as Prevelayer (spell?) for Java.

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

You generally lose behavioral wrappers in an OODB; in other words, toss encapsulation. But the navigational-ness of OO still remains in them. Thus, they are half-OO.

-T- Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 23:15:33 CET

Original text of this message