Re: use of Mixed DB types.

In article <K4bK7.12433$ym4.541862_at_iad-read.news.verio.net>, "Ray Cassick \(work\)" <ray.cassick_at_intel.com> wrote:

> I see examples quite often where people say that a OO Database would
> work better for one situation than another, or vice versa... Has anyone
> done any design patterns that took advantage of BOTH types of databases
> (OO and Relational) within the same solution? Is this feasible

As far as straddling this fence goes, there's plenty of precedent for simply combining the two data models in one dbms.

http://www.unisql.com/uw/web/english/index.htm - the support section has some pdf's (click downloads) with info on the system.

I've always enjoyed Won Kim's description of the difference between relational and OO (in one of the pdf's above, and a DB book I got years ago):

table		is changed to	class
view		is changed to	virtual class
row of table	is changed to	instance of class 
column		is changed to 	attribute
procedure	is changed to 	method
table hierarchy	is changed to	class hierarchy 
child table	is changed to 	subclass
parent table	is changed to	superclass

Add references and some pointer swizzling (also in UniSQL), and you're pretty much across the "divide". Most of the major RDBMS's now have object support in them as well. Received on Tue Nov 20 2001 - 05:39:04 CET