Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:19:38 +0000
Ed Prochak wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:15 pm, S Perryman <q..._at_q.com> wrote:
>> // etc
>>Attr1 = string
>>Attr2 = Sequence<SomeNastyRecordType>
>>There were 100+ resource types, and at least 100+ attr types.
>>Which types had which attrs, and whether they were mandatory (belonging
>>to all instances of a types) , or optional (present on a per-instance
>>basis) was defined by the standards body (for the perversely-interested,
>>This is what the developers were faced with.
>>Store the info for each resource instance (and meta-info to allow the
>>generation/processing of outgoing/incoming messages requesting/retrieving/
>>setting the attr values) .
>>Their mandated impl technology : SQL RDBMS.
> So they designed the data model to match the Standards document? IOW > they did not do any design, but just tried to implement the standard > in the RDBMS directly, right?
> My first impression (coming in late to this thread) is that is what > happened. And that is clearly an EAV design. Given a standard like > that I think I would quickly decide to split types into different > entities.
As did they (except for attrs that were multi-valued of course) .
> [ conclusions drawn from speculation and not fact - snipped ... ]
Steven Perryman Received on Thu Mar 20 2008 - 10:19:38 CET