Re: Mixing OO and DB

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:47d73235$0$4054$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> David Cressey wrote:
>
> > "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:485c487b-90d4-477f-a26a-10a280110d29_at_e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>On Mar 8, 6:07 pm, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2008-03-06 15:37:56 -0600, topmind <topm..._at_technologist.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>>>Each small group of classes becomes a little roll-your-own data
access
> >>>>>and manipulation scheme that is perfectly tuned for it's very
specific
> >>>>>purpose.
> >>>
> >>>>Which is over-kill for the task-level.
> >>>
> >>>Do you have proof that it's overkill? Do you have any objective
> >>>measurements that it's overkill? Or it is just your own opinion. I
> >>>mean, if it works for you that's great, but don't force your own
> >>>opinions on everyone else <grin>
> >>
> >>This is a fallacious argument. You're proposing extra effort without
> >>justification. The idea that, in the absence of evidence either way,
> >>topmind's proposal of not putting in that effort is on equal footing
> >>with yours doesn't hold. Extra effort requires justification. What
> >>you are saying is, "hey, we don't know if this work has any value
> >>or not, so doing it is just as justified as not doing it."
> >>
> >>Burden of proof and all.
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is very common for programmers to manipulate data into forms that
> >>>are particularly convenient for the application they are writing.
> >>>Databases are seldom in that form since (for one thing) they must
> >>>usually serve many different and competing applications.
> >>
> >>(I'm going to just label the above as bogus without justification.
> >>It's late and I'm lazy.)
> >
> > Not so fast, Marshall.
> >
> > There's a germ of truth in his comment. The difference is between fine
> > tuning for a special purpose and broad tuning for multiple purposes.
>
> Which is why both logical independence and physical independence are so
> important. Do you honestly think any currently proposed non-relational
> data model has any hope of challenging the relational model on either?
>

No. Did I imply such a thing?

Notwithstanding, I am prepared to be surprised. Received on Wed Mar 12 2008 - 11:47:16 CET