Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:37:13 +0100
> I don't believe that merely using an RDBMS will solve all problems. What
> I meant was that, accepting what David said above, if you keep your data
> in an RDBMS, it will be easily available for the solution of any
> possible problem that can be solved using that data.
No, this as well is wrong. Keeping "data" in RDBMS puts certain restrictions on what can be stored there and how it can be used later.
You propose a solution (DB on a RDBMS). What was the problem? From your description the problem looks like a persistence layer. This what c.d.t. people vehemently disagree. Isn't it interesting to see how quickly a great theory of all degrades to storage?
>> I guess that his hidden argument was "because RDB >> apparently solves all problems, then data-centric view is the right one."
> No, the argument is that the data-centric view is often (not necessarily
> always) the right one to take, and that keeping the data in an RDBMS
> provides a better basis for solving future problems using the data than
> any other way of keeping it.
Ah, that's better. So data-centric view is not universal => then there exist cases which cannot be viewed that way => data is not a fundamental term => data do not unconditionally exist. Are we in agreement?
>> Yet another logical fallacy was a data-centric problem statement: "there >> will never be any other application that will need my data," used in order >> to prove data-centric view itself.
> There is no fallacy here. First there is a fact - you have data, however
> you choose to view it. Do you want to deny this?
Certainly. Non-observable things do not exist. But the fallacy is that you are putting existence of data as a fact from which you deduce data existence.
> No, but the data is still there.
In which sense? Laplace has answered this two hundred years ago: "I did not need to make such an assumption."
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Wed Mar 05 2008 - 21:37:13 CET