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

Bob Badour wrote:
> Look, if you are completely ignorant of the last 50 years of computing,
> I have no intention of trying to educate you in a usenet post.

even instead of this - my db works ))) and of course i am not ignoring all 50 years of computing. I am just found little another way. And this way not completely new or unique. graphs theory, semantic network theory, frames, neural networks, ... all of them required network storage. and, network storage it is not a hierarchical storage.

> You are focusing on structure to the exclusion of integrity and
> manipulation. That's just a dumb mistake.

no, i don't focusing only on structure. i am focusing on all DB aspects as they should be visible from one OODB user. Now i just don't have resources to implement multithread and multi-user OODB kernel. And even if i can implement it - it not optimal decision. For example without series of experiments i will spend time to implement ODMG object identification conception, (1 OID == 1 instance). now i know that this conception is not perfect. transactions - now i support undo/redo (not only begin-commit-rollback) ...

and etc and etc.

WBR,
Dmitry Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 17:41:24 CEST