Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
From: Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:01:52 -0800
Message-ID: <2vs994F2pqodpU1_at_uni-berlin.de>
>
>
> An User class can't map to an User relation because it is an absurd to
> map types to variables or values (Date's 1stGB).
>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:01:52 -0800
Message-ID: <2vs994F2pqodpU1_at_uni-berlin.de>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
StrawMan removed
>>This might be the explanation why your example of a simple User class that >>maps to a User relation works perfectly in practice.
>
>
> An User class can't map to an User relation because it is an absurd to
> map types to variables or values (Date's 1stGB).
>
Where by "map" you speak loosey-goosey not mathematics.
But it may very well be that all entities of type user are hosted in the database as tuple inside a User table.
So for some subset of types X (user, account, order, product) etc, for each type X_type there's a corresponding X_table in the database. And there's nothing wrong with that, Date and your unargumented opinion notwithstanding. Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 19:01:52 CET