Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:15:08 -0300
Message-ID: <47d7e570$0$4077$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>

David Cressey wrote:

> "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?

I don't know. I couldn't see the point in what you wrote.

> Notwithstanding, I am prepared to be surprised.

I think advances are much more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary, but I am open to surprise too. Received on Wed Mar 12 2008 - 15:15:08 CET