Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Cimode" Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models) Date: 30 May 2006 06:52:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <1148997168.964868.73440@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1148940908.338233.159400@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.154.188.107 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1148997175 28083 127.0.0.1 (30 May 2006 13:52:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:52:55 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1148940908.338233.159400@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 localhost:5656 (squid/2.5.STABLE11) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.154.188.107; posting-account=XWbNBg0AAABXMdLVqoM3R9n-RIU90_cb Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.object:139454 comp.databases.theory:40290 Hello, I noticed a recurring commercial argumentation about creating *behavior* into components (named classes). This caracteristics is often presented as being a differentiation of relational model where no such thing really exists (and in fact is not necessary). In a word, In OO approach (for whatever it may rely on), one of the main limitation of relational model would be not to allow its elementary components to emulate elementary predefined processes (transformations for instance). I have the impression, there is a concept, unbearable to some programmers that data management systems can not be anything else than a mechanized set of tool that could help structuring data for human interpretation. On that standpoint, relational model components reflect an approximation of *meaning* concept as being a contextualized and specific combination of constraints, business rules to make predefined inferences about that data for preparing interpretation. Processes are defined only according to specifically defined inferences. On the other side, OO approach seems to advocate that some level of elementary process autonomy will end up creating *some* form of intelligence thanks to some cumulative effect. On such perspective, I start suspecting all debate stating behavior lacking in the relational model is an empty unfounded attempt of some IT professional to project their scifi fantasies about what system could do and what they can actually do in a realistic manner. On the other side, some OO advocates state that OO approach brings some features that would seem to better implementations of subtype and supertypes features through inheritance as well as a better in memory physical handling of non primitive types than what we are accustomed to with traditional SQL implementations. I am curious about your opinion about this matter as this is a new board for me. (Sorry if you have noticed some english errors as it is not my native language) so bear with me please.