Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:06:58 -0300
>>"Bob Badour" <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>>Think 'class' ~ 'relation' (table)
>>>But that would not only be a blunder but a great blunder.
>>I'd like to clarify this for anyone coming from the OO side. If you map
>>class to relation, you're breaking the OO rule of encapsulation and reducing
>>the class to a simple aggregate type (struct). Presumably, you chose an
>>encapsulated, polymorphic abstraction device for a reason, or did you do so
>>just because you (or somebody at your company) read Lhotka's book? Classes
>>map to domains (types) in the relation model, but be aware that subclassing
>>is NOT subtyping.
> Speaking just for myself, when I am programming in an OO language,
> I map classes to whatever I feel like. OO really only provides the
> one unit of abstraction, the class. If the only tool you have is a
> class, everything looks like an object. Or something.
> In other words, when I want an abstraction for something in
> Java, I make it a class, because that's about the only choice.
Does Java have no arrays or associative arrays? Received on Wed Jun 17 2009 - 18:06:58 CEST