Re: The same simple question to relational theorist (with video now).

On 2013-04-20, Evgeniy Grigoriev <grigoriev.e_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-04-20, Eric <eric_at_deptj.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric.
>
> Thank you! Also I don't want to think about how data is mapped (in
> both direction!) between realtional representation and object-oriented
> description.

You may not want to think about it but whoever is designing your "bulldozer" has to think about it.

>>I doubt it, because such mappings are an
>> unresolved and probably unresolvable problem.
>
> LOL. Eric, just look my video. I'm sure you will forsed to take these
> words back. I claim I solve the problem. Look my video and try to object.

Apologies for making you laugh - in fact I left out an intended sentence there, so I need to say now that that remark applies mainly to the case where the non-relational end of the mapping is some form of object-oriented, which seems to be true in your case anyway.

If the non-relational end is, as it should be, some set of purpose-designed storage methods, then there will, of course, be no problem.

I have yet to find the time to watch (and concentrate on) a 35-minute video, but when (and if) I get there I will let you know what I think.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry