Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:32:50 GMT, Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:

>>>I simply cannot believe that you do not see what is problematic about
>>>this type of argument. Seriously.
>>
>> So what is problematic?
>
>It's irrelevant.

Then I can continue to think the same without worry :)

>The question that must be answered is whether there are
>any practical problems if you redefine the notion of type such that it
>does include relational variables.

The practical problems exist. I supose that you have readen the section of TTM that describes some of these practical problems, like a return to chasing pointers.

>> It's well known that the DBMSs that tried to treat relational
>> variables as types were a fiasco.
>
>It is also well known that these were not technical problems.

Indeed, these were model problems :)

Although most OO coders think that the OODBMS technology is immature (technical problems).

BTW, currently we can say that XML-DBMSs were the next big fiasco.

Even M$ is following (more or less) the equation class=domain in the new SQL Server.

Regards Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 14:57:57 CET