Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

Hi Cimode
> > Primary purpose - modeling neural system with up to 2000000000 neurons.
> > 1 neuron == 1 object instance.
> So you are saying that a specific implementation is the end of a entire
> logical model based on applied mathematics (as a reminder, some people
> have worked for more than 40 years onto creating RM). Don't you think
> this is hasty?

Why you think that i am ignoring these 40-60 years? Or why you think that i spent few days to my research? )) Of course i am using all that i can use. But RM is not unique model which can be used.

> Good support for data type is the ability for instance to apply
> specific querying operators on the data belonging to that data type.

I am not implementing complete and independent DB. My application is based on Microsoft .NET Framework types library. I don't make my own programming language. C# is supported. My OODB is a dll which can be used from .NET So it is inherited all specific operations from standart .NET types. And all .NET functionality can be used when application working with DB. But inside persistent classes delegates and events are not supported.

> Can you create a data type *neuron* that you can manipulate at wish?

Of course. Just need to create yer anoter .NET class.

> for instance lets say neuron has a property *wavelength*...can you you
> find all neurons with specific wavelength? superior to specific
> wavelength?

yes, but i don't support indexes for properties. current version supports only ObjectIDs index. so if needed search between count of objects you should use your own index implementation. It is very easy to use System.Collection.Hashtable and serialize it as part of some persistent object, for example.

> What capability of operations involving neurons can your
> system handle? What kind of behavior do you aim at tracking in storing
> neurons?

System can create new object instances, dereference ObjectID to object reference, remove reference to persistent object from current context. When all references to some instance are removed from all contexts this instance is removed from storage.

also i support undo/redo transactions.

persistent objects can contain methods. one persistent object can invoke method from another persistent object. objects are instantiated in ram by demand. so it is not needed to load all instances from storage file at system startup.

> domain are RM counterpart of mathematical ensembles of values. For
> instance, let's say you have ensemble of values (neuron1, neuron2,
> neuron3, neuron4, neuron5). Can you define a data type involving only
> (neuron2, neuron4, neuron5) ? How? When(at execution time? compile
> time?)

I don't need this feature. All instances are objects derived from System.Object. objects can implement some interfaces. If object implement some interface which needed in some context - you can use this instance. If not - you can check this and decide what you want to do with this object. Constraints can be implemented in property getters and setters. It is not a RM database at all.

You should develop your class by C#, compile it. Register assembly and types in DB and then you can use your types. If you will use structured serialization it is ok to recompile assembly from one run to another.

WBR,
Dmitry Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 17:11:32 CEST