Re: how to model object containment in relational

Mark C. Stock wrote:

> "Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote
> in message news:pan.2004.03.22.12.08.27.248934_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
> | Em Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:32:07 +0000, Asya Kamsky escreveu:
> |
> | > Is there a good newsgroup for this type of question? Some sort of
> | > relational theory and modeling newgroup?
> |
> | There's comp.databases.theory, but you will only profit if you
> | already understood that SQL is not relational, that relational is good
> | and OO is bad.
> |
> | No kidding.
> |
> |
> | --
> | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 5685 2219
> | Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71 +55 (11) 5686 9607
> | 04.674-000 São Paulo, SP BRASIL
> | http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/
>
>
> i'll assume you meant 'SQL is not object oriented'
>
> i'm born an bred on relational and have always thought OO to be something
> like another religion (or at least presented as such)
>
> OO is not inherently bad -- any technology (or philosophy for that matter)
> that is approached with crusader's zeal will end up being used badly
>
> i'm starting to explore oracle's OO features, and definitely see a place for
> them -- initially in such things as commonizing address and person types,
> including methods to standardize data formats
>
> my impression of the biggest divergence (and largest opportunity for misuse)
> of the two technologies, is that SQL is set-oriented and OO is, well,
> object-oriented, and too many OO enthusiasts focus on coding for specific
> instances of an object rather then processing sets of objects
>
> looking forward to additional posts
>
> ;-{ mcs

They both have their place. Especially when one considers that front-ends, and end users, are not set oriented.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)