 | |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Object-relational impedence -
03-03-2008
, 11:27 AM
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Thomas Gagne <tga... (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote: One thing I would like to avoid (outside of almost flames of course), is the notion that database technology is merely a persistence layer (do people still actually think that?) |
c.d.t. who DOESN'T think that. In the real world you will be thought some
kind of simpleton/troll/nutcase if you suggest it isn't just a persistence
layer.
Roy
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Thomas Gagne" <tgagne (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote in message news:7vqdnf21dLOnrVHanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d (AT) wideopenwest (DOT) com... JOG wrote: I wondered if we might be able to come up with some agreement on what object-relational impedence mismatch actually means. I always thought the mismatch was centred on the issue that a single object != single tuple, but it appears there may be more to it than that. The issue as I've discovered it has to do with the fact OO systems are composed of graphs of data and RDBs are two-dimensional. RDBs are not two-dimensional, they are n-dimensional. You are confusing the picture of the thing with the thing. I have a three dimensional kitchen table. I have an RDB table with three columns (dimensions) called length, width and height that describes it. |
There is a certain level of abstraction where and RDB is definitely
n-dimensional. This is the level of abstraction where I spend most of my
time thinking. So I tend to agree with you, Roy.
There is, however, a different level of abstraction where an RDB is
two-dimensional. So Tom is not "wrong" all the way. And it may be at that
level of abstraction where the OO RM impedance match comes about.
Quote:
|
I completely, 100% agree with that. Code is evil. It appears, from reading c.o., that OO people regard data structures as |
It sounds like Stalinists versus Trotskyites to me!
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Thomas Gagne" <tgagne (AT) wide-open-west (DOT) com> wrote in message news:7vqdnf21dLOnrVHanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d (AT) wideopenwest (DOT) com... JOG wrote: I wondered if we might be able to come up with some agreement on what object-relational impedence mismatch actually means. I always thought the mismatch was centred on the issue that a single object != single tuple, but it appears there may be more to it than that. The issue as I've discovered it has to do with the fact OO systems are composed of graphs of data and RDBs are two-dimensional. RDBs are not two-dimensional, they are n-dimensional. You are confusing the picture of the thing with the thing. I have a three dimensional kitchen table. I have an RDB table with three columns (dimensions) called length, width and height that describes it. |
There is a certain level of abstraction where and RDB is definitely
n-dimensional. This is the level of abstraction where I spend most of my
time thinking. So I tend to agree with you, Roy.
There is, however, a different level of abstraction where an RDB is
two-dimensional. So Tom is not "wrong" all the way. And it may be at that
level of abstraction where the OO RM impedance match comes about.
Quote:
|
I completely, 100% agree with that. Code is evil. It appears, from reading c.o., that OO people regard data structures as |
It sounds like Stalinists versus Trotskyites to me!
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.