Re: Generic Modeling

jraustin1_at_hotmail.com (James) wrote in message news:<a6e74506.0201031125.57a1b251_at_posting.google.com>...

> >
> > First, 100 randomly arranged objects are not very useful.
> Maybe not but sometimes reality is that way and chaos is the norm not
> order

This statement is pretty fatalistic. Can you provide an example of a realistic situation comprising 100 objects that have meaning when arranged in any arbitrary configuration of relationships?

> > I would say that an OODBMS has an advantage over an RDBMS when you are
> > using an OO programming language for logic AND your serialization
> > needs can be handled (nearly) transparently and efficiently by the
> > OODBMS. An RDBMS has the advantage
> > when your data has to be accessed by a non-OODBM system.
>
> XDb is not a serialization of objects in a oo programming environment.
> XDb is a database like Access and SQL Server but much simpler and
> smaller yet more flexible and faster. XDb is accessible via a simple
> GUI interface and by programming environments capable of calling a
> DLL, for example VB, VB Script, ASP, C, C++, ASP, Delphi
> (www.xdb1.com/Dev/API).
>

In what way is XDb like SQL Server?

SQL Server supports multiple users. XDb doesn't. SQL Server can survive a brief power outage. XDb can't. SQL Server databases can be larger than 2GB. XDb databases can't. SQL Server implements transactional processing. XDb doesn't. SQL Server supports an interpreted, declarative query language. XDb doesn't.
SQL Server supports access control via locking. XDb doesn't. SQL Server uses the relational model. XDb uses an object model.

I guess they both hold data, but other than that there is little basis for comparison between the feature sets of XDb and SQL Server. Received on Thu Jan 03 2002 - 23:56:13 CET