In defence of the fat database
laurip
of where we are
in utilizing databases in applications
Your thoughts?
http://thehelsinkideclaration.blogspot.com/2009/03/helsinki-declaration-observation-1.html
Lauri Pietarinen
Nilone
> I am posting this link because I think it gives an excellent summary
> of where we are
> in utilizing databases in applications
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
> Lauri Pietarinen
Why am I not surprised that a class-based programming language is
involved.
laurip
>
> Why am I not surprised that a class-based programming language is
> involved.
What class-based programming language are you referring to?
Nilone
Quoting from the article you linked (which seems to have moved, btw):
"But then at the dawn of the new millenium, something happened. And
that something misteriously made the role of the DBMS inside a
database application project diminish to insignificant. Of course I'm
talking about Java and J2EE here now..."
Java, of course, is a class-based object-oriented programming language.
TroyK
I suppose you could say that "...a class-based programming language is
involved." in much the same way you might say that Codd's papers
involved a hierarchical data model.
Nilone
When I made that post, I had only read part 1. I have now read all 4
parts.
Many of the issues described have been discussed in this group in the
past. If the author or the OP can offer any solutions, I'll be
interested in hearing about it. My hobby horse at the moment is to
understand the problems of entities and objects.
laurip
> Many of the issues described have been discussed in this group in the
> past. If the author or the OP can offer any solutions, I'll be
> interested in hearing about it. My hobby horse at the moment is to
>
I think he does offer solutions, in later posts. It's the "Fat
Database".
Regarding the object/relational missmatch, i think this is a pretty
good summary
of the situation "on the ground":
http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx
Lauri
Roy Hann
> My hobby horse at the moment is to
> understand the problems of entities and objects.
Leave such concepts to artisans. Entertaining those two concepts
(whatever one thinks they are) is the very first step towards confusing
the data with the real world. Once you do that you are lost.
--
Roy
Nilone
>
> Lauri
LOL, thanks. I've read it - check the "Entity and identity" thread.
As you say, it's a pretty good summary.
Nilone
Too late. I have a strong liking for metaphysics, and the whirlpool
at the intersection of computer science and philosophy is just too
strong to resist. I've started reading up on object-role modeling,
which looks good.
Unfortunately, I've got exams coming up and I've got to study
"Database Systems: Design, Implementation and Management" by Rob,
Coronel and Crockett. When I'm done with that, it's SQL and PL/SQL in
Oracle. Finally, to finish the year, I've got object-oriented
programming and design patterns in C++.
Thankfully, my copy of TTM arrived two weeks ago, so I can look
forward to restoring my sanity in December.
laurip
>
> > Regarding the object/relational missmatch, i think this is a pretty
> > good summary
> > of the situation "on the ground":
>
> >http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science...
>
> > Lauri
>
> LOL, thanks. I've read it - check the "Entity and identity" thread.
> As you say, it's a pretty good summary.
Aw yes, I see that the "Vietnam" article has been discussed in this
group already...
Lauri
Cimode
take great care into their science ;) Not much about the description
of the world through the eyes of sloppy object minds and concepts.
Perhaps, a better analogy would be to compare the explanations of the
world through the eyes of OO crowd as the explanations of how to turn
lead into gold. In other words, OO crowd are the nothing else than
the alchemists of computer science.
> Roy