Re: Unknown SQL

On Wed, 30 May 2001 00:30:44 -0400,
"Bob" == Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote:

>> With the evolution of object databases things will change.

Bob> Either you are extremely naive or you are blind to basic facts.

Hey, calm down ...

>> Ideally object databases do not need specialized implementations.

Bob> Object languages expose physical implementation details to programmers.

Not the ones I have seen; most have some more abstract pointer model in which the pointers are certainly not bare addresses, and are more akin to primary/foreign keys.

Bob> So, every OO database is specific to a single programming language.

Many OODBMS's nowadays do two or more from {Java, C++, SmallTalk}. And they should, and it even shouldn't be all that tricky to implement.

>> If object databases do not introduce unneeded own constructs, switching
>> between vendors becomes very easy: You simply need no maintenance work at
>> all. Load all objects out of one database and store it to the other.

[ I agree with this, but I don't see it happining any time soon,   unfortunately ]

Bob> Provided you deal with a single programming language as implied by your
Bob> 'respective programming language' statement above, and provided all OO
Bob> databases for that language use the same OID format internally. 

I don't think some form of standardized portable OID is a priori impossible; URI's, IORs or Xpointer/XLink already seem to point that way.

Bob> You don't seem to get the fact that the value 10 remains constant no Bob> matter how one represents it.

But that's an entirely different matter. SmallTalk is about the only language that chooses to make 10 a (singleton) object in its own right. And although I find this going a bit too far, there is logic behind it. Is "Wednesday May 30 14:23:03 BST 2001" an object? Well, yes, why not. It's an object with value semantics. Is "5.08 cm" an object? Is it a singleton? Is equal to, or equivalent with or identical with the "2 inch" object ?

Bob> Philip gets it.

If you mean me, I'm, not sure I 'get it'.

>> Of course there are areas where standardization work will be necessary:
>> 1.) Persistency callback functions
>> 2.) Queries
>> 3.) Locking and isolation level behaviour

[ incidentally, much groundwork for this appears to have been done by the CORBA folks ]

Bob> The rest of your message was too irrelevant for comment.

[ These sorts of remarks detract from the real content ... please leave them   out, you might risk being deemed irrelevant in turn ]

Cheers,

                                                                      Philip

-- 
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some. (Kraulis)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, lijnzaad_at_ebi.ac.uk \ European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-08
+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 / Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           \ Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53