Re: Object-relational impedence

"topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message news:8a26ad88-6088-4048-9de3-7a37ff7213e1_at_s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:f5ec20ea-5341-405c-9a67-036b0c321183_at_d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Brian Selzer wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:783693cf-0424-4d3c-a16b-30fef9365c04_at_u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Brian Selzer wrote:
>> >> >> "S Perryman" <q_at_q.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:frot80$5k7$1_at_aioe.org...
>> >> >> > Eric wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 2008-03-17, S Perryman <q_at_q.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > SP>For the real-world systems involving "variant records" that I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > worked
>> >> >> > SP>on (100+ different record types, 100+ different property
>> >> >> > types)
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > table
>> >> >> > SP>is merely a global variable from hell (as evidenced by the
>> >> >> > several
>> >> >> > telecoms
>> >> >> > SP>systems that used the same approach in the 1990s and ended up
>> >> >> > being
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > SP>lifetime rewrite and rebuild job whenever types and properties
>> >> >> > came
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > SP>went) .
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > E>If you build a system around something like that, you are
>> >> >> > crazy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>How *dare* you criticise the mighty "table-oriented" programming
>> >> >> >>>!!??
>> >> >> >>>:-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I don't know what table-oriented programming is, unless you want
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> bring up something like Filetab. Any tool can be misused, and
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> case
>> >> >> >> certainly sound like extreme misuse (of just about anything).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > E>If it is a given that you have to deal with, all you can do is
>> >> >> > treat
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > E>messages and parse them to put the information you need into
>> >> >> > sensible
>> >> >> > E>structures. This is probably true for a much smaller number of
>> >> >> > variants.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>The system was just a nightmare (C, Oracle etc) .
>> >> >> >>>A relational *data* base was completely the wrong impl
>> >> >> >>>technology
>> >> >> >>>for
>> >> >> >>>the
>> >> >> >>>problem.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>And the developers could not be blamed for anything that they
>> >> >> >>>wrote
>> >> >> >>>(I
>> >> >> >>>saw
>> >> >> >>>the code) .
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> That just means that their idea of how to program with an RDBMS
>> >> >> >> was
>> >> >> >> similar to yours. Maybe you and they are both wrong.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe they and I were in fact right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Their DB schema was normalised etc as expected (each type had a
>> >> >> >>>set
>> >> >> >>>of
>> >> >> >>>attribute properties, those properties could be sets, sequences,
>> >> >> >>>record
>> >> >> >>>types, collections of refs to instances of other types etc) .
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Sounds like an EntityAttributeValue system - we _know_ that they
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> silly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Feel free to search on "OSI network management" , "CMIS" etc.
>> >> >> > That will tell you sufficient about the subject domain for which
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > were using an RDBMS as an impl technology.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>The performance of the system (meta-type checking, property id
>> >> >> >>>retrieval,
>> >> >> >>>retrieving messages from real equipment and putting property
>> >> >> >>>info
>> >> >> >>>into
>> >> >> >>>the
>> >> >> >>>correct tables etc) was just dire as a result of the operational
>> >> >> >>>sequence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>And this was for a system that only represented a manager-side
>> >> >> >>>view
>> >> >> >>>of
>> >> >> >>>a network of a few hundred equipment instances. If this approach
>> >> >> >>>had
>> >> >> >>>been
>> >> >> >>>used for subsequent systems I worked on (the equipment-side
>> >> >> >>>view,
>> >> >> >>>for
>> >> >> >>>a
>> >> >> >>>network of *500,000* telephone lines) , the developers would
>> >> >> >>>have
>> >> >> >>>been
>> >> >> >>>shot.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>It was such dis-crediting of RDBMS at the time (1991-1995) that
>> >> >> >>>led
>> >> >> >>>to
>> >> >> >>>the
>> >> >> >>>rise of OODBMS in the telecoms arena (at that time OODBs only
>> >> >> >>>had a
>> >> >> >>>foot-
>> >> >> >>>hold in the CAD/CAM arena) . The performance difference was
>> >> >> >>>orders
>> >> >> >>>of
>> >> >> >>>magnitudes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Somebody designed and built a bad system, so you blame the tools
>> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> used. Oh, no, hang on, you just blamed one of the tools. All the
>> >> >> >> other
>> >> >> >> tools and platforms, all the designers and programmers, they
>> >> >> >> were
>> >> >> >> perfect.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What are you on about ?? What *other* "tools and platforms" ??
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Their system used an RDBMS. And it performed poorly.
>> >> >> > The same systems subsequently built on the same platforms (HW,
>> >> >> > OS,
>> >> >> > comms,
>> >> >> > prog langs etc) , but using an OODBMS instead, performed orders
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > magnitude better.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's life.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Funny, but this "orders of magnitude better" claim sounds like
>> >> >> something
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> shifty politician like Barack Hussein Obama would say. He can
>> >> >> supposedly
>> >> >> turn a whole lot of nothing into something that makes women swoon.
>> >> >> Politicians--especially Dimocrats, but not exclusively--play on the
>> >> >> ignorance of their constituents by telling only part of the story.
>> >> >
>> >> > Uh uh politics!
>> >> >
>> >> > We need somebody like G.W.Bush to set everything right and give us
>> >> > the
>> >> > full story {cough} {cough} {cough}.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I used to like Bush. I voted for him twice.
>> >
>> > Even in 2004 when it was clear that Iraq was a joke?
>> >
>>
>> Especially in 2004. Iraq wasn't a joke. One might consider it a
>> mistake,
>> but only if one chooses to disregard the facts, mainly the fact that our
>> presence in Iraq over the last five years has saved hundreds of thousands
>> of
>> Iraqi civilians from torture, starvation, and death. Under Saddam,
>> 90,000
>> civilians were either tortured or starved to death each year--most
>> children
>> under the age of 5.
>
> Where does this figure come from, Rush Dimbulb?
>

Actually it is from much more liberal sources. In 1999 the World Health Organization complained that 5000 children under the age of 5 were dying of starvation each month. They, of course, blamed the U.N. Sanctions, but if you do the math, the billions (over 10) in Oil for Food money that Saddam Hussein diverted to his cronies and for his own purposes could have easily fed those hundreds of thousands of children. That makes him directly responsible for those deaths. Also, CNN and the BBC reported that human rights groups estimate that over 300,000 people have been buried in over 260 mass graves in Iraq. That number doesn't take into account those that were not killed en mass. Moreover, in 2003, Newsweek reported that Saddam's regime slaughtered as many as 8 million people. That puts him on par with the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. 90,000 is a very conservative number.

>> And that doesn't take into account the maimings, the
>> rape rooms and the other tortures that make Abu Gharib seem like
>> Disneyland.
>> So just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean that there weren't just
>> and
>> sound reasons to remove that monster. And those reasons certainly
>> weren't a
>> laughing matter.
>>
>> John Kerry would have removed our troops prematurely, precipitating a
>> civil
>> war and genocide the likes of which hadn't been seen since Rwanda or even
>> Cambodia..
>>
>> >> But I'm disappointed. We've
>> >> got millions of squatters here with many more pouring in every day.
>> >> These
>> >> criminals drain local economies. More police are required to deal
>> >> with
>> >> the
>> >> increased crime; more space is required in prisons to house their more
>> >> desparate and violent elements. They also crowd emergency rooms, thus
>> >> driving up the price of health care and reducing availability to
>> >> law-abiding
>> >> citizens. The fence that should have already been built has barely
>> >> even
>> >> begun to be constructed. It's a bleeding wound. You would think that
>> >> Bush
>> >> would at least put a band-aid on it--especially since Congress
>> >> actually
>> >> appropriated monies for it.
>> >
>> > Move to the colder north. Most undocumented visitors are from warm
>> > countries and are not fond of cold. But many welcome them because they
>> > provide (illegally) cheap services such as lawn care. Everybody wants
>> > a bargain....until their job is lost to such laborers. Sort of like
>> > our oil addiction.
>> >
>>
>> Visitors?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> Take for
>> >> >> example the hysteria over global warming. The disasters and
>> >> >> horrors
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> are predicted by the left-wing lunatics can only happen if the
>> >> >> globe
>> >> >> warms
>> >> >> by at least 5 or 6 degrees, but in the last 100 years, the globe
>> >> >> has
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> warmed by about half a degree.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah, let the kids worry about floods and drought; we'll be dead by
>> >> > then. Typical repub: dump problem on the next generation (debt.,
>> >> > climate, good-will, etc.)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> At the rate of global temperature increase, it won't be my kids, or my
>> >> kids'
>> >> kids, but fifty generations down the road. Count 'em, fifty! By then
>> >> all
>> >> of the fossil fuels will have long since been exhausted, and the
>> >> climate
>> >> will have adjusted itself accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> Just a little tidbit of information that you appear not to know: the
>> >> Dims
>> >> controlled the Senate for nearly half of Bush's Presidency. Remember
>> >> Jumpin' Jim Jeffords? Even in those years that they didn't, they
>> >> still
>> >> had
>> >> enough power to block any legislation that they didn't like.
>> >> News-flash:
>> >> you need 60 votes in the Senate to limit debate--that is, to prevent a
>> >> filibuster. That means that you need 60 votes to get anything done.
>> >> That's
>> >> why it seems that nothing ever gets done (and that's probably a good
>> >> thing).
>> >
>> > You are assuming that all GOP's are the same and all Dems are the
>> > same. They are not. They have differing opinions, and party
>> > affiliation is an oversimplification. Plus, W is playing a Game of
>> > Chicken with our troop supplies.
>> >
Received on Thu Mar 20 2008 - 11:49:50 CET